Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism

Introduction

Recent years have seen the rise of several new academic specializations in culture, but for most of it anthropology has been left out in the cold. Turner (1993) claims that this lack of interest in what anthropologist have to offer in the multiculturalism “game plan” is due, at least to some extent, to a lack of effort on the part of anthropologists. At first glance it would appear that anthropologists have yet to make any effort to even try and understand what multiculturalists have in mind, and ignoring this basic principle hardly seems like the best way to get involved. When reading Eriksen (2001) and Wright (1998) however the problem seems to have less to do with apathy and more with ineffectiveness.

Two types of multiculturalism

Once anthropologists have decided to take an interest there is still a long road they’ll have to go down in order to truly be effective (Eriksen,2001; Turner,1993; Wright,1998). For most people the term multiculturalism has become just another name for a political tool used by minorities to have the majority pander to their demands. This may be true for some multiculturalists, but it certainly does not ring true for all and failing to realise that will lead to discontent. Turner defines two main types of multiculturalism based on their approach namely critical multiculturalism and difference multiculturalism. Critical multiculturalism uses cultural diversity as a platform from which to challenge the ruling hegemony. They dispel separatist notions held by all groups concerned in order to create a more egalitarian common culture. Difference multiculturalism on the other hand seeks to separate different groups into groups and cheapen culture till it becomes merely a label that can be indiscriminately applied to people. Turner calls them “fetishists of difference” and the seeming irrational obsession that these multiculturalists have with cultural difference serves to pave the way for a dangerous type of separatism.

Why is this distinction significant for anthropology?

According to Turner anthropology has a far more uniform approach to culture and it would appear that they have been somewhat naïve when thinking about culture and he even likens some of it to difference multiculturalism. This is mostly true when one looks at what Wright calls the “old” idea of culture, where cultures were seen as isolated units, with little or no interaction between them. Turner also claims that this weakness has been present in most anthropological ways of thought from early evolution right down to diffusion. In recent years anthropology has contributed to a more balanced world view and cultural relativism can be seen as an ancestor of critical multiculturalism.

Conclusion

One can hardly blame certain multiculturalists for trying to reify culture; bounded distinct entities are so much easier to work with than people who actually think for themselves. The undeniable political aspect of multiculturalism as seen in Turner makes this even more tempting. The insights anthropology has to offer when handling diversity has so far been severely underdeveloped and it is time for a more practical and direct approach as can be seen from all the works sited.


References

Eriksen, T.H. 2001 “Multiculturalism and Anthropology” in Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, Second Edition p280-281

Turner, T. 1993 “Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What is Anthropology That Multiculturalists should be mindful of It?” in Cultural Anthropology 8(4):411-429

Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of ‘Culture” Anthropology Today 14 (1) pp 7-15