Multiculturalism is often promoted as a state we ought to pursue in order to achieve greater social unity, respect and harmony through cultural diversity instead of cultural homogeneity. I argue that the kind of multiculturalism which is being extolled is only superficially inclusive. Genuine multiculturalism poses a risk to long-term social stability, especially in times of economic or existential crises. Mass-migration that is typically associated with multicultural policies can have a devastating effect on the emigrant nations.

“Multiculturalism seeks the inclusion of the views and contributions of diverse members of society while maintaining respect for their differences and withholding the demand for their assimilation into the dominant culture.” (Britannica)

Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime-Minister of Australia, has made the following statement in the introduction to the recent Australia’s Multicultural Statement: “We are defined not by race, religion or culture, but by shared values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and equality of opportunity.” Ironically, the ‘shared values’ that the above document claims we already possess suggest a fundamentally homogenous, dominant culture, not the normative equality of multiple cultures, it therefore contradicts its own premise: that multiculturalism is something that we value above our own culture.

Many believe that there are objective normative reasons to show tolerance to other cultures, affording all migrants as much freedom of expression as practicable without negatively affecting the existing social conditions. Tolerance of diversity is certainly a sign of a robust host-culture and is something to be pursued to a degree, but cultural diversity can be consistently tolerated only insofar as the included cultures respect all other cultures’ norms. Not all cultural differences can be reconciled in this way. The primary risk associated with multiculturalism therefore stems from normalisation of cultural divisions that could be exploited to undermine social cohesion, especially in times of general hardship. Cultural and religious diversity, neither of which has rational grounding but is a contingency of more or less arbitrary belief-systems, unavoidably weakens social cohesion. The inherent dogmatic rigidity of custom or religious belief precludes the resolution of conflict via public deliberation and thus may necessitate the use of force. If the political whole lacks a shared, core belief-system, then conflicts cannot be resolved to mutual satisfaction and the involved parties become increasingly antagonistic towards one another, seeing other cultures as oppressors. Multiculturalism can still be managed under favourable existential conditions but is unlikely to result in spontaneous social-stability which entails a mostly homogeneous, even if continuously changing culture. A culturally diverse population always poses a risk to peace, and that provides implicit justification for a militarised, authoritarian state to enforce peace, resulting in less freedom and more state intrusion in the lives of all.

Multiculturalism also raises the question about what cultures ought to be recognised as distinct cultures and, more fundamentally, what is a culture. A flatly egalitarian position would entail acceptance not just of coarse national cultures but of micro-cultural variations and tendencies, therefore embracing all differences in dogma, custom and ideology, but this would also entail embracing an unmanageable scope of conflicting and irreconcilable beliefs. It is unclear how such uncritical normalisation of cultural conflict could serve the common good, or how the use of force should be sanctioned in response to cultural violence without negating its commitment to unbiased cultural tolerance. Cultures are not typically inclusive, let alone intrinsically inclusive: a culture is identifiable as culture precisely because of its characteristic tribal prejudices. Cohabitating cultural groups have interest in subordinating other cultures to their own preferences and beliefs. For multiculturalism to work, at least some cultural prejudices must be kept in check, what presupposes a degree of cultural subjugation according to a common norms that stand above all the included cultures. This suggest that the kind of multiculturalism which is being extolled is only superficially inclusive of cultural differences or is not multiculturalism at all. It is better characterised as multiracialism: diversity of races, possibly with diverse cultural backgrounds, being integrated within a homogeneous culture.

An overarching normative structure that could do the job of managing genuine multiculturalism would have to be an arbiter of rightness or wrongness of the conflicting cultural beliefs, values and reasons; some cultural beliefs would thus have to be judged as wrong (or, at least, as less right) and be discriminated against accordingly. Such normative structure would then be the dominant culture. The most minimal set of overarching norms would have to consist in rationality, understood in the most rudimentary sense of adherence to the law of non-contradiction, excluded-middle and identity: the necessary conditions of reliable communication and sense. I do not see how the ultimate normative role of rationality could be dispensed with without resulting either in non-sense or in cultural violence. Perhaps additional normative elements could to be added to this structure, but nothing could be subtracted from it.

Multiculturalism is closely and perhaps unavoidably linked to migration. In recent years the focus is squarely on a specific subset of migration: refugeeism. The debate about the rights of refugees and the obligations of states where refugees seek asylum is filled with emotion, political pathology, half-truths and irrationality. Here I will attempt to unpack the ethics of mass-migration and refugeeism in purely analytical terms.

I assume there are objective normative reasons to help other cultures in times of hardship if they cause us no harm, but what constitutes ‘help’ is often not obvious. Just because someone wants something, let alone believes that one would benefit from something, does not entail that this want or belief ought to be satisfied. One thing that most philosophers would probably agree on is that we all have the ethical obligation to preserve (in full) the agential capacity of others, insofar as exercising this obligation does not directly assist anyone in causing intentional and unjustified harm to anyone else. Something that there is likely to be a lot of disagreement about is whether nation-states have the ethical obligation to provide material support, satisfaction of wants, desires or beliefs, or anything else that is likely to lead to development of long-term existential, psychological or cultural dependency on the benefactor, since dependency is precisely what undermines the agential capacity, leading to a practical contradiction. Deciding what is the best outcome for all parties involved is a genuine moral and practical dilemma; it tests rationality of the benefactors as well as the beneficiaries in a different way in every crisis situation.

Permanent migration is unavoidably associated with displacement/uprooting trauma, which is independent of trauma associated with human rights abuses in the home country and negative stereotyping by the native population of the host country. While “there is global recognition of a growing need to understand and meet the mental health needs of refugees and asylum-seekers worldwide”(ISTSS), the effect of large-scale migration affected by displacement and abuse/discrimination traumas on the host population is largely unknown, undertheorised and underprioritised, and ought to be considered a unquantified risk factor.

Another major dilemma relates to permanent resettlement of large numbers of refugees from ‘failed states’. This subset of migration is likely to have deleterious effect on the capacity of those states to recover from the crisis. A country without its people is nothing but land (land and natural resources, to be precise); a county that loses its population, let alone its youth, is greatly weakened just at the time when it needs to be strong. This is both dispiriting and economically crippling, unavoidably leading to a degree of economic dependency and debt that is nearly impossible to ever recover from. It essentially opens the country up to predatory takeover by foreign corporations and hostile nation-states.

“Developing countries can suffer from ‘brain drain’ – the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. For example, there are currently more African scientists and engineers working in the U.S. than there are in all of Africa, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). In Zambia, emigration has reduced the number of practicing doctors from 1,600 a few years ago, to a mere 400 today. The IOM estimates Africa’s brain drain has cost nearly $9 billion in lost human capital and growth potential since 1997. According to the United Nations Population Fund, 2006 State of the World Population report, Africa only retains 1.3 percent of the world’s health care practitioners.” (Levin Institute)

This is probably not the case for economically stable, sovereign states such as 1998-2007 Poland, where much of emigration proved to be temporary. In the case of Poland a slight positive economic effect was reported on account of emigration due to backflow of remittances from foreign employment (The Effect of Emigration from Poland on Polish Wages). For the economies of failed-states the situation appears to be radically different, with emigration potentially contributing to protracted political instability, absorbing remittances sent from abroad into the conflict-economy rather than into exportable value creation. (Global Policy Forum) The negative effect is further compounded by the inflow of foreign-aid, which according to some (The Strategist; Foreign Policy) motivates the main recipients or distributors of aid (typically those who are politically the strongest) to perpetuate the state of crisis as a lucrative source of enrichment. This dovetailing of the interests of local warlords, foreign corporations and the effect of depopulation can indefinitely prevent economic and cultural recovery.

“Failed states do not actually disappear: rather, through the power vacuum that they create, they draw into their ambit various external political and economic forces. They are integrated into regional and international affairs through the flows of refugees they create, their migrants abroad, international crime syndicates and legitimate or illegitimate economic interaction. They provide useful assets for crime groups based in wealthy countries.” (Transnational Institute)

According to David Miller (Immigration: The Case for Limits. 2005), helping refugees does not need to equate with granting permanent residence to all of them. Temporary protection followed by resettlement in the country of origin may be the optimal solution for long-term minimisation of harm.

923 views