Kickoff debate

[adalger]

So, now that we have some members, here's a topic:

Is "multiculturalism" truly beneficial?

I'll start off by taking the negative position.

Multiculturalism is a tool used by the establishment to prevent the unification of Americans into one common culture. It perpetuates inter-cultural tension by emphasizing the differences between Americans who come from different cultural heritages. The only true path to peace and unity is to abandon this continued segmentation to fulfill the promise of the Melting Pot.

Discuss. :)

Comments

[adalger]

Oh, this is purely a theoretical exercise. Many debate topics center around a proposition that has severe political impediments to adoption. That doesn't negate the value of a "should" position.

My counter to your point above is that you have shifted my argument from "one world culture" to "one world government." One world-spanning Orwellian government is not the only way to enculturate people.

I come from a background of pure debate, where "should" and "would" are two completely different and largely unrelated questions. What should happen, according to my proposition, is precisely that all the people of all the cultures should agree to some common cultural framework with a rational basis, and raise their children in these new cultural values. Convincing Israel and all its Arab neighbors to adopt some common set of shared values is quite likely impossible in the real world, but is in fact a solvent plan for peace in that area.

So, the short answer is, you're absolutely right that this isn't a realistic solution. It's very much an idealistic view. But if it could work, it would work.

[jayeless_archive]

The reason I discussed the implementation of a world culture is because I thought you asked sloth whether the benefits of a world culture outweigh the price. I believe the implementation is a price in itself. Since you agree that abolishing multiculturalism is unrealistic for our world, I'll have to assume that we're now discussing the effects of culture on a hypothetical world, rather than our own.

Even if a world willingly united under a common culture, that would not eliminate all conflict, so there would not be world peace. There can still be conflicts over territory, resources and economic concerns. As time goes on and new generations develop new value systems, there would also no doubt be some fragmentation of society between the different groups. Eventually I'm sure that would lead to conflict as well.

Conflicts on ideological and nationalistic grounds would, presumably, not happen. This is not to say those conflicts would have happened if not for the "world culture", though. I tend to think that if a world's population can reach agreement on a culture to unite under, there probably wasn't enough disagreement to lead to conflict in the first place.

There would also be a disadvantage in that some people enjoy studying, experiencing and trying to understand cultures different from their own. They couldn't do so if there were no other cultures to experience. They could study them from records (keeping them would be more feasible if the world voluntarily gave these cultures up), I guess, but some people really like the diversity of people. They may also enjoy discussing differing values with other people -- politely, not starting wars about it -- and that would also be eliminated, to a large extent, by a worldwide culture (incl. value system).

So, I remain doubtful about the benefits of a unified world culture. It wouldn't work in the real world, and I don't know how much it would reduce conflict on a theoretical world -- perhaps it would depend on the culture agreed to. Out of interest, to what extent do you believe it would reduce conflict?

[adalger]

Rather than "hypothetical world," I would phrase it as "hypothetical / speculative future for the real world." I'm not sure whether this differs in meaning from what you intend with your phrasing.

The definition of "culture" I am using is "all the knowledge and values shared by a society ". My position is that conflicts are caused by differences between the values of different cultural groups. Territorial and economic conflicts do fall under this, because two groups in conflict over territory or economic opportunity each value their own rights to the object of contention more highly than those of others. If they shared the cultural value that whoever could best use the oportunity for the benefit of all had the most right to it, these kinds of conflicts would be easily mediated by economic analysis. Since shared culture means shared knowledge, both sides would have access to the same information about expected costs and benefits and how to evaluate them.

Many of the beneficial diversity you fear would be lost could in fact be retained as local custom. I would be personally very sorry to lose the vast diversity of drumming styles in the world, as I love learning new styles of hand drumming. Others are similarly interested in dance, clothing, cooking, etc. However, these are not integrally tied to a single culture so tightly that they must be abandoned in a shift to a single set of core cultural values. These are elements of knowledge that can be shared, rendering all of them part of the New Culture.

I believe, with a carefully crafted set of cultural values, all armed conflict could be eliminated. I believe the New Culture must be exactly that: new, specifically constructed to be as inclusive as possible of all the customs and rights it can. I believe the correct path to this is to stop labelling different styles of art and craft and cooking as belonging to a specific culture.

As a concrete example of helpful vs. harmful methods of integration, let me try explaining this way. In my hometown, there are Greek and Irish and Polish and Lebanese and Hungarian and several other festivals of various nationalities. There are also restaurants that serve food from these various cultures, and bands that perform music from these various cultures. I love the restaurants, I love the musicians, and I think the festivals just promote the maintenance of a separate cultural identity for these groups rather than inviting them to consider themselves Americans first and foremost.

I hope I've answered the questions you've asked, because I really appreciate how much you're making me think about what I'm saying! :)

[jayeless_archive]

I think our definitions of culture differ somewhat; I would include traditions (or customs) as part of culture in addition to values, which is different to your view. Cultures do change over time, so one may adopt traditions from another, or may value tolerating that tradition, but I believe traditions themselves are still a feature of culture. The difference may not matter in the context of a New Culture, though, because this New Culture could simply adopt all cultures' traditions.

That said, I think you've dealt with most of my reservations about your argument. I could happily support a value system that protected people's rights, and I can see how armed conflict wouldn't happen if governments shared the same values (the two I think of in particular would be valuing non-violence and fairness).

I am doubtful about entrusting an organisation with creating a value system for everyone else to follow. Its members wouldn't necessarily be impartial, after all, and you wouldn't want them promoting values only to benefit themselves. There would have to be checks and balances to ensure they remained tolerant and committed to protecting people's rights.

I still haven't been persuaded, though, that multiculturalism is bad (although considering we define "culture" differently, this may not be surprising!). I see it as being about people of different cultures living together and accepting each others' backgrounds, and I see that as enriching our society. It provides a whole range of ways of thinking for us to consider, and in making us more tolerant and interested in foreign cultures it improves our relations with other countries. We also celebrate the variety of ethnicities here, and I don't believe that encourages fragmentation in our society -- everyone is Australian as well. There is some trouble with groups who reject "Australian values", but they're made up of people who seem to feel alienated, rather than excessive pride for their lands of origin. And certainly, if we told people to become "more Australian", I think there would be more alienation. Thus I believe we're better off with multiculturalism.

You're very welcome for the questions! :) I like discussions that make me think.

[adalger]

Ah. I think you've got me on the point of why people reject the values of the culture dominant in the land where they physically reside. I'll also concede that, in the context of my argument, your definition of culture is more appropriate than mine. Nicely played!