Multiculturalism is a slippery ideology, in that there is a myriad of variations to the concept. This wealth of definitions is actually a great advantage to the supporters of multiculturalism, as it is easy for them to deflect any attacks upon their viewpoint, by saying "Oh no, that's not the kind of multiculturalism that I'm talking about"; they can swap, merge, and confuse definitions, and therefore dodge valid arguments by avoiding "being pinned down" to one definition. Various commentators have spoken on the issue of the various definitions of multiculturalism:
Lois Foster and David Stockley, in their study of the multicultural concept, talk of "the various ideologies of multiculturalism which have competed for official acceptance and dominance in Australia", and have said that "there has been a growing body of theoretical criticism of the ambiguity and confusion surrounding the use of the term 'multiculturalism'." An Ethnic Affairs Council report admitted that "There are many kinds of multiculturalism and some are grossly incompatible with Australia's political and social system." Dr. Franco Schiavoni (of the Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission) said that "In the Australian context the term 'multiculturalism' has been used to refer to a variety of policies and theoretical perspectives". Dr. Ralph Pervan (then Chairman of the Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission of WA) prophesied that "in the 21st Century ... we will still be debating the meaning of multiculturalism." Paolo Totaro (of the Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW) said "Multiculturalism - notwithstanding the widespread use of the word - is still a very imprecise, albeit very useful concept." The Ethnic Affairs Task Force has told us that "the concept of multiculturalism has lacked precise formulation and wide public acceptance." As Professor Lauchlan Chipman said, "years ago when the term 'multi-cultural' had not been long in vogue, I was inclined to dismiss multiculturalism as, at best, an irritatingly muddled way of trying to represent the whole range of life-styles to be found among Australian residents ... In terms of the spectrum to which I earlier referred, ranging from Millian liberal pluralism ('soft' multi-culturalism) through to anti-buttimilationism, ethnic separatism, and non-hierarchical apartheid ('hard' multi-culturalism), I was inclined to interpret it at the soft end. Today it is clear that advocates of multi-culturalism are operating in the middle and harder divisions of the spectrum; the soft end - which has no essential connection, in origin or in justification, with ethnicity - is reserved simply for astounding the shallower critics who, in expressing doubts about multi-culturalism, are made to look like racists, or illiberal and intolerant bigots. Fast footwork through the spectrum is frequently necessary in debates with multi-culturalists." In summing up this "trendy" ideology, Chipman was later to describe multiculturalism as an "intellectually degenerate and practically corrupt social philosophy". Government officials, and other multiculturalists, have even been apparently contradictory as to whether Australia actually is multicultural (supposedly) or not.
On some occasions, we're told that Australia isn't multicultural: "The major recurring themes of the position most clearly buttociated with the Fraser government can be summarized as: 1) Multiculturalism was an atbreastude to be encouraged, not a present reality ..." (This says that we're not multicultural). "Australia has been developing towards a multicultural society for nearly 200 years". Prime Minister Bob Hawke, 1984. ("Developing towards" infers that we're not multicultural). "... the widely shared goal of a multicultural Australia". Dr. Andrew Theophanous, MHR for Burke, 1982. ("Goal" infers that we're not multicultural). "Thanks to migration our Australia today is a multicultural nation in the making." Bishop of Bathurst, A.E. Thomas, 1978. ("In the making" infers that we're not multicultural). "Government buttistance is a necessary factor in achieving a multicultural society." Ethnic Affairs Task Force, 1982. ("Achieving" infers that we're not multicultural). On other occasions, we're told that Australia is multicultural: "Australia has been multicultural in nature throughout its history, both before and after European colonization". The New South Wales Department of Education's Multicultural Education Policy, 1983. "The crux of our argument is that Australia is already a society of multiple cultural idenbreasties, or a multicultural society". The Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, 1977. "In a descriptive sense multicultural is simply a term which describes the cultural and ethnic diversity of contemporary Australia. We are, and will remain, a multicultural society. As a public policy multiculturalism encompbuttes government measures designed to respond to that diversity. It plays no part in migrant selection. It is a policy for managing the consequences of cultural diversity in the interests of the individual and society as a whole." Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989. "In a descriptive sense Australia is likely to remain multicultural well into the twenty-first century." Office of Multicultural Affairs. 1988. The apparent contradiction lies in the use of two differing buttertions of multiculturalism. First, that of Descriptive Multiculturalism, whereby a claim is made "about the pluralistic nature of society" (i.e. that Australia consists of many different cultures). Secondly, that of Prescriptive Multiculturalism, whereby an buttertion is made "about an ideal type of society to be achieved some time in the future." The way that many multiculturalists can so easily swap between these two differing buttertions of their ideology can make their arguments "as slippery as an eel" to pin down. As has been noted by Anne Seitz, "The descriptive and prescriptive definitions of multiculturalism are seldom used consistently and accurately. Very often there is a confusion or a 'sliding' between the two concepts. Frequently this 'slippage' is deliberate -- a convenient tactic to confuse the issue under debate."
As another example of the selective use of the term; it could be asked why some other "multi-ethnic" societies are not normally (if ever) called "multicultural" (even in the "descriptive sense"). For example, Fiji, the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka; let alone apartheid-era South Africa. The truth is, multiculturalists use the term as it happens to suit them at the time.
The effects of the introduction of multiculturalism into Australia have been enormous, with the results being mostly divisive and destructive. In 1989, in what amounted to an expensive attempt to rehabilitate the general public's view of "multiculturalism", the government produced a widely-publicised document: The National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia. This was the government's opportunity to give its version of multiculturalism. However, to believe a pro-multicultural government's public definition of multiculturalism would be as naive as believing Joseph Stalin's public definition of communism, or Adolf Hitler's public definition of nazism: their explanation would be a "whitewash", avoiding the real disadvantages and negatives inherent in the system, and ignoring the "reality" of their ideology (i.e. what it means in the "real world"). The introduction of multiculturalism in the 1970s has given a "concrete" impetus to, and a "moral" justification for, a wide range of pro-ethnic machinations and anti-Australian practices from those multiculturalists in government, the public service, various insbreastutions, the education system, and in general (whether such practices arose from ideology, group "needs", or self-interest is immaterial).
So, what is this ideology called "multiculturalism" really all about? The defining of multiculturalism can be fraught with difficulty, as there are several aspects to this ideology, as well as a myriad of views and perceptions concerning it. Even the advocates of this policy talk of the "different concepts of multiculturalism" and admit to "difficulties in defining ... 'multiculturalism'".
However, upon investigation, it can be seen that there are four basic aspects to multiculturalism:
1.. Demographic Multiculturalism
2.. Prescriptive Multiculturalism
3.. Holistic Multiculturalism
4.. Political Multiculturalism As each of these aspects are interrelated, it is therefore necessary that each of these four strands should be looked at, to understand the overall ideology.
1. Demographic Multiculturalism.
Also known as Descriptive Multiculturalism; this is an buttertion that because a society has people from different backgrounds that therefore such a society, as a whole, should be described as multicultural; applicable whether that society be a nation, a city, or even a small town.
On the surface, there would seem to be little to disagree with in this concept. However, there are two angles to be considered.:
Firstly, to look at it as a matter of scale, or of proportion. For instance, if a single German, and a single Russian were to take up residence in a far flung, isolated, culturally homogeneous village in China, does that village automatically become multicultural? Of course, one could become pedantic and say that as that village now contains people of several cultural backgrounds, that the village has now become "multicultural". It could then be said that everywhere in the world is "multicultural" as in every place you will usually find someone who belongs to a different culture, whether it is a national culture, a regional culture, or even the "culture" of a different family. The whole concept becomes nonsensical. Or, if it is a matter of scale, at what stage does a society become "multicultural"?
Secondly, to look at it as a matter of cultural commitment. For example: Should Norway be considered a "Norwegian" country; or should it, by reason of recent migration, be considered a "multicultural" country? If one is granted the privilege of migrating to Norway (and it is a privilege, not a "right"; as no-one has the "right" to migrate to a foreign country), shouldn't one make a commitment to learning the Norwegian language and adapting to the Norwegian culture? Or does one say "Well, I'm here now, your country had better start adapting to suit me"?
The point is, if a nation has a mainstream or predominant culture, that "culture" can be a matter of commitment: from the nation to the immigrant, and from the immigrant to the nation. When immigrants, and their second and third generations, become part of a nation and its culture, demographic statistics of "ethnic background" lose their relevance. Cultural divisiveness (multiculturalism) arises when home-grown agitators (academics, liberals,"lefties", etc.) and self-appointed migrant "representatives" ("Well, I'm here now, your country had better start adapting to suit me") become active in the pursuit of their own political and social agendas.
Therefore it can be seen that a country which houses a minority of people from different cultural backgrounds (i.e. "ethnic minorities"), and a "multicultural country", are not the same thing. The difference lies in Political Multiculturalism (defined later in this section).
2. Prescriptive Multiculturalism
This is the aspect most commonly, and often deliberately, confused with Demographic Multiculturalism; that is, to confuse a descriptive phrase (a demographic "what is") with a prescriptive phrase (an idealistic "what should be"). Prescriptive Multiculturalism is the aspect of the ideology which provides "prescriptive buttertions about an ideal type of society to be achieved some time in the future", hence the multiculturalist's talk of "Australia is not yet a multicultural society", or their yearning to create "a truly multicultural society".
Petro Georgiou (then Director of the Australian Insbreastute of Multicultural Affairs) believes that "Multiculturalism in essence symbolises a determination to secure the rights of individuals of all ethnic backgrounds to equal access to programs and services - to economic, social and political opportunities, and - to tolerance and understanding of diversity". Others have claimed "that a truly multicultural society would make provision for the use of all languages in everyday affairs, including official transactions".
As Lorna Lippman commented, "To contend that Australia is a multicultural society is a dubious proposition, since this would buttume that the different ethnic groups are (according to the Commonwealth Education Portfolio definition) "equal in their access to resources, services and political power" and this, though it may be a social ideal, is not a reality in Australia today." Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki has laid down the "three aims of multiculturalism", namely "ethnic cultural idenbreasty", "a more socially cohesive nation", and "equal access to social resources"; this opinion being echoed by the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council's 1977 report, Australia as a Multicultural Society. In reinforcement, John Menadue (then Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) said "These principles of cultural idenbreasty, social cohesion and equal opportunity have become generally accepted as pre-requisites for a multicultural society."
Brian Bullivant relates how these three "aims" have "dominated official statements" about multiculturalism, to which he says is sometimes added a fourth, "equal responsibility for, commitment to and participation in society" (an addition which has been supported by the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs), the exact meaning of which he has called "obscure"; although, nonetheless, multiculturalism's supporters hope "that a multicultural Australia will achieve all these features and more". Bullivant then adds that "It is at this point that anyone with a sense of history and philosophy must begin to doubt the rhetoric of multiculturalism. Can it really be that the Australian version will solve the pluralist dilemma that has resisted resolution by philosophers and politicians for centuries; will the multicultural golden age dawn over antipodean skies?". Faced with such "romantic" multiculturalism, Bullivant says that even "Jean Martin, the late doyenne of Australian sociologists, has put an opposing view based on a more accurate sense of history that such buttumptions 'defy the weight of historical experience'."
Prescriptive Multiculturalism can be seen to be a "fairy tale" that supporters can easily cite as an argument for multiculturalism as, being an "Utopian" ideal, it cannot be immediately disproved; yet it is often used to support (and supposedly prove???) the multiculturalist ideology. In fact, like all other aspects of multiculturalism, upon a closer examination, it actually proves to be dangerous and divisive in its implementation.
3. Holistic Multiculturalism
This stresses the idea of cultural pluralism: that the maintenance of many, or "plural", cultures housed within a nation's "ethnic groups" is valuable, both to the ethnic group (to the ethnic group itself, as well as to its individuals) and to the host nation (as a whole). It says that the nation should value such cultural diversity; although these cultures should co-exist "within an overall framework of unity" (paradoxically, this "framework" is usually that of the predominant culture). This is how multiculturalism is usually portrayed in the "current" or "operative" sense; indeed, it has been said that "Multiculturalism has come to be a shorthand term for a form of cultural pluralism.".
Cultural pluralism is said to be "a mode of living which enables everyone to maintain his or her culture or whatever segments of it they may desire, without prejudice or disadvantage". Of course, the practical difficulties of such a theory are enormous, considering the many "weird and wonderful" cultural practices that exist around the world, many of which would not be welcome in a "Westernised" society.
Closely linked to the idea of cultural pluralism is that of cultural relativism, i.e. "that each culture is of equal value, and should not be judged from the cultural perspective of others". Again, in a practical sense, this concept is so ridiculous that it can only be considered an exercise in futility.
Also, it has been noted that "the full expression and the maintenance of cultural pluralism would need to be supported through and by ethnic-specific structures -- that is, by structural pluralism."
But, like Demographic Multiculturalism, Holistic Multiculturalism is irrelevant without the mechanics of Political Multiculturalism.
4. Political Multiculturalism
This is the active promotion of cultural pluralism, so that rather than encouraging migrants to adapt to the national culture, or even leaving them to their own devices, the government will deliberately encourage migrants (and their offspring) to remain within society as separate "ethnic" groups. It actually opposes the buttimilation of immigrants into the nation's culture.
In the normal course of events, immigrants would've been able to adapt to the national culture, and their children and grandchildren could become fully part of the nation's mainstream culture. Instead, all of these people are now being told not to adapt, but to retain a separate idenbreasty from that of host nation, thus ensuring divisiveness.
An important tactic employed in this process, related to cultural pluralism, is that of structural pluralism whereby it is believed that "rather than leaving migrants to engage in their own cultural practices or not, as they please, Governments should actually encourage migrant groups, by explicit funding and other policies, to maintain their own insbreastutions, their own kind of ... languages, news media, clubs, societies, schools, sporting and other recreational groups, and, possibly, economic insbreastutions like shops and professional services. This should be done, not to help provide a stepping stone into the wider society, but because it is a good thing in its own right and an end in itself". It is this "trend to insbreastutionalise cultural distinctiveness through organisations" that enables the government to artificially "enable all cultures brought to Australia by migrants to be maintained and developed". As one commentator noted, "In its extreme form, structural pluralism entails an apartheid-like separatism and carries the potential for dividing rather than unifying society."
An integral part of political multiculturalism is for the government, and other pro-multiculturalists, to force their views upon the entire population, thus making it the "official ideology" of Australia. For their purposes, it is seen as imperative that multiculturalist ideas are forced upon children in their formative years, so as to shape the views of the coming generations. Thus, Lorna Lippman (then Director of the Victorian Office of Community Relations) has demanded that "Social insbreastutions and particularly educational insbreastutions, have to contribute to multiculturalism" and that they "retain the term 'multicultural' as being an official ideology in Australia with widespread adherence, particularly from education authorities". It is seen that "the education system must play an active role in bringing about ... a stable multicultural society". To this end "General education at primary and secondary level now includes multicultural study programmes", for which it has been recommended that "general curriculum be re-examined and that Multicultural emphasis be reflected in all subject areas" (emphasis added).
It is through political agitation and action, via the power of government policies and resources - and supported by liberal-internationalists in the media and the education system, that multiculturalism has become the dominant ideology, which is now being forced upon modern Australia.
Multiculturalism needs to be recognised for what it is: a political ideology.
----------------- Multi Cultural ism Awareness Centre.
