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
Monday, 11 December 2006
Transnational Ethnicity
Transnational Ethnicity
Introduction
“In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurring struggle for existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of selection.”- Charles Darwin
There are 6,477,450,857 humans in the world and still there are only six degrees of separation between any two (Wikipedia). The world is shrinking all around us, and being able to adapt to this ever changing environment is the only way for a group to be successful. There are those who’ve recognised the opportunity offered by global connections and are making full use of this growing niche.
Discussion
Up until relatively recently the word “network” was ‘n foreign concept to most people, but this has changed considerably. People are no longer confined to living out their lives on the family farm and are moving further and further away from home in search of a better life and better opportunities (Eriksen, T.H 2001). Ethnic groups are no longer defined by where they live, but rather that of their ancestors (Vertouvec, S 1999). Diasporas especially have successfully exploited the opportunities offered by technology and have build up vast social networks. Vertouvec states that a Diaspora can remain bonded despite their separation through what he calls a “shared imagination”. This connection between individuals thus has far more to do with the way people think than where people live. This is important since it helps explain what ethnicity now means to people.
As always the youth are especially touched by this and it is not uncommon to find young people from diverse “base” cultures consciously selecting factors to accentuate. These conscious choices are influenced at least to some extend by the related advantages offered by being part of that ethnic group. Such favourable conditions surrounding a specific ethnicity also serves as an incentive when it comes to keeping customs alive.
Maintaining these social networks not only helps those living abroad, but also their families at home. Many migrants send money home and even though the individual amounts may be small, they add up to at least $75billion world-wide (Martin 1994 in Vertouvec). For a poor country with limited resources available these remittances offer a valuable lifeline, bringing at least income to impoverished households. This isn’t just a one sided drain however and resources flow quite freely within these social networks, creating a bigger “pool” of assets which people within the network can draw from. These networks serve to create advantageous environments for those involved, with jobs and even marriages being organised within the network (Vertouvec 1999).
Conclusion
Some transnational communities may have been forced into this way of life due to war or other turmoil, but have since made a great success of it. And there are definite advantages connected to belonging to one of these networks (Vertouvec 1999). However membership is not certain and when you go against their wishes you risk being ostracised (Eriksen 2001).
References
Eriksen, T.H. 2001’the Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ & ‘the Global, the Local and the Glocal’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Population Reference Bureau, Population Statistics, http://www.prb.org/datafind/prjprbdata7.asp?DW=DR&SL=&SA=1 (07 August)
Vertouvec, S. 1999 ‘Conceiving and researching Transnationalism’ in Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2)
Wikepedia, Six degrees of Separation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/six_degrees_of.seperation (07 August)
Introduction
“In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurring struggle for existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of selection.”- Charles Darwin
There are 6,477,450,857 humans in the world and still there are only six degrees of separation between any two (Wikipedia). The world is shrinking all around us, and being able to adapt to this ever changing environment is the only way for a group to be successful. There are those who’ve recognised the opportunity offered by global connections and are making full use of this growing niche.
Discussion
Up until relatively recently the word “network” was ‘n foreign concept to most people, but this has changed considerably. People are no longer confined to living out their lives on the family farm and are moving further and further away from home in search of a better life and better opportunities (Eriksen, T.H 2001). Ethnic groups are no longer defined by where they live, but rather that of their ancestors (Vertouvec, S 1999). Diasporas especially have successfully exploited the opportunities offered by technology and have build up vast social networks. Vertouvec states that a Diaspora can remain bonded despite their separation through what he calls a “shared imagination”. This connection between individuals thus has far more to do with the way people think than where people live. This is important since it helps explain what ethnicity now means to people.
As always the youth are especially touched by this and it is not uncommon to find young people from diverse “base” cultures consciously selecting factors to accentuate. These conscious choices are influenced at least to some extend by the related advantages offered by being part of that ethnic group. Such favourable conditions surrounding a specific ethnicity also serves as an incentive when it comes to keeping customs alive.
Maintaining these social networks not only helps those living abroad, but also their families at home. Many migrants send money home and even though the individual amounts may be small, they add up to at least $75billion world-wide (Martin 1994 in Vertouvec). For a poor country with limited resources available these remittances offer a valuable lifeline, bringing at least income to impoverished households. This isn’t just a one sided drain however and resources flow quite freely within these social networks, creating a bigger “pool” of assets which people within the network can draw from. These networks serve to create advantageous environments for those involved, with jobs and even marriages being organised within the network (Vertouvec 1999).
Conclusion
Some transnational communities may have been forced into this way of life due to war or other turmoil, but have since made a great success of it. And there are definite advantages connected to belonging to one of these networks (Vertouvec 1999). However membership is not certain and when you go against their wishes you risk being ostracised (Eriksen 2001).
References
Eriksen, T.H. 2001’the Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ & ‘the Global, the Local and the Glocal’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology.
Population Reference Bureau, Population Statistics, http://www.prb.org/datafind/prjprbdata7.asp?DW=DR&SL=&SA=1 (07 August)
Vertouvec, S. 1999 ‘Conceiving and researching Transnationalism’ in Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2)
Wikepedia, Six degrees of Separation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/six_degrees_of.seperation (07 August)
Child Labour Paradox
The Child Labour Paradox
Introduction
In a perfect world, there would be no poverty and no need for children to occasionally contribute to their households. Policy makers tend to believe that this world already exist and fail to take into account the realities of poverty when they are busy writing the laws. Child labour is often seen as a problem found only in developing countries and some even go as far as using the level of dissociation as a measurement for modernity.
Discussion
Ignoring the realities of poverty stricken societies will cause more harm than the child labour associated with it. Goverments are placing modern children in a gilded cage where presumably they are to be pampered and well looked after. In theory grants will be given to any family that needs it, thus eliminating the need for children to work. This would leave children free to attend school, get educated and work. Sadly this theory doesn’t translate nearly as well into practice; child support budgets get cut and there’s less and less money to go around. The implications of these factors are far reaching and you end up with a situation where the parents cannot afford to care for their children, the state is offering limited support and it is illegal for the child to work in order to contribute to their own survival. You’re left with a catch twenty two where somewhere along the line someone will be forced to either break the law in some way or starve. These policies also fail to take into account that our notion of “child labour” is not universal, there are societies where children’s work has become a significant part of their developmental process. For Tonga children working on the family farm is more than a chore in order to get some pocket money, it is important for their very survival. In a world of substince farming few can afford the luxury of sitting back and taking it easy till they’re old enough to work for a living. These children make a valuable contribution to their own family’s survival, without which the outcome would be bleak. Thus denying a child’s ability to participate in their own survival by creating value is far more detrimental than allowing them to work. There are even those who actively defend their right to work. However, labour laws were never meant to deny children’s rights, but rather to enforce them and to protect them from exploitation.
Conclusion
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is something you hear so often that you fail to take it seriously and the same goes for policy makers. Nobody ever sat down and went on a mission to hurt children with child labour laws, but failing to take into account economic and social factors leaves them at risk of doing just that. The west often forgets that their views of the world are not always those of the world and policy makers could go a long way by acknowledging that. The Tonga boy minding the cattle in the Zambezi Valley is not the same as the boy in rags stitching away in a sweatshop and policies should reflect this difference.
References
Levine,S. 1
eO.1996 ‘Paradox of child labour and Anthropology’ in Annual Review Anthropology 25:237-251
Introduction
In a perfect world, there would be no poverty and no need for children to occasionally contribute to their households. Policy makers tend to believe that this world already exist and fail to take into account the realities of poverty when they are busy writing the laws. Child labour is often seen as a problem found only in developing countries and some even go as far as using the level of dissociation as a measurement for modernity.
Discussion
Ignoring the realities of poverty stricken societies will cause more harm than the child labour associated with it. Goverments are placing modern children in a gilded cage where presumably they are to be pampered and well looked after. In theory grants will be given to any family that needs it, thus eliminating the need for children to work. This would leave children free to attend school, get educated and work. Sadly this theory doesn’t translate nearly as well into practice; child support budgets get cut and there’s less and less money to go around. The implications of these factors are far reaching and you end up with a situation where the parents cannot afford to care for their children, the state is offering limited support and it is illegal for the child to work in order to contribute to their own survival. You’re left with a catch twenty two where somewhere along the line someone will be forced to either break the law in some way or starve. These policies also fail to take into account that our notion of “child labour” is not universal, there are societies where children’s work has become a significant part of their developmental process. For Tonga children working on the family farm is more than a chore in order to get some pocket money, it is important for their very survival. In a world of substince farming few can afford the luxury of sitting back and taking it easy till they’re old enough to work for a living. These children make a valuable contribution to their own family’s survival, without which the outcome would be bleak. Thus denying a child’s ability to participate in their own survival by creating value is far more detrimental than allowing them to work. There are even those who actively defend their right to work. However, labour laws were never meant to deny children’s rights, but rather to enforce them and to protect them from exploitation.
Conclusion
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is something you hear so often that you fail to take it seriously and the same goes for policy makers. Nobody ever sat down and went on a mission to hurt children with child labour laws, but failing to take into account economic and social factors leaves them at risk of doing just that. The west often forgets that their views of the world are not always those of the world and policy makers could go a long way by acknowledging that. The Tonga boy minding the cattle in the Zambezi Valley is not the same as the boy in rags stitching away in a sweatshop and policies should reflect this difference.
References
Levine,S. 1
eO.1996 ‘Paradox of child labour and Anthropology’ in Annual Review Anthropology 25:237-251
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)