Q&A: Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I would like to ask what your opinion is about multiculturalism. But in order to answer that, and since I know you are not interested in discussing general questions, I’ll try to present some kind of line of thought.
I’m taking a course on multiculturalism as part of my degree in the behavioral sciences. I have no words to describe how unnecessary and nonsensical I think this course is. I have no idea why they teach it at the university. Of course, I get no answer from the lecturer to even the most basic foundational questions—not only in this course, but also in other nonsensical courses, like “Differences Between the Sexes,” for example, and the like. It amazes me every time anew that when it comes to the foundational questions in these various issues, the lecturers (mainly female lecturers) wave me off and move on as if the answer were obvious and there were no point discussing it at all. In my opinion there are two possibilities: either the answer really is obvious and there is no point discussing it, or they simply do not have answers, so evasion is the ideal option. In my opinion, the second answer is more plausible.
To the matter itself: multiculturalism as a whole, I think, sits on postmodern roots. It is entirely based on assumptions like “everything is a social construct,” and “there is no one truth, because everyone has his own truth.” Rabbi Moshe Rat already argued in his book Simply Believe that if everything is a construct, then presumably that statement too—that everything is a construct—is itself a construct. And if there is no truth, then that statement too—that there is no truth—is also not true. Everybody already knows that. And if so, what is the point of investigating and trying to understand the world? Presumably a person’s basic assumption—and I think this is a completely legitimate assumption—is that his perception is correct until he is convinced otherwise. So what happens when there is a contradiction between people’s beliefs? How can a multicultural practice be implemented in such a situation?
As you can see, beyond the flaws that the multicultural view suffers from (which I’m sure are very familiar to you), my remarks are aimed mainly at the question whether such a practice can exist in reality. That is, on a superficial view multiculturalism sounds like a very moral, correct, and enlightened approach, since all it is trying to tell us is to be tolerant, to understand that my beliefs may be mistaken, to listen, and to try to live with people who do not necessarily think like I do. But as I noted, a person’s basic impulse is to live according to his belief (which he thinks is true). So what happens in a situation where there is a contradiction between beliefs? Does multiculturalism contribute there in any sense as well? In my humble opinion, no. That is, multiculturalism cannot demand that I give up my beliefs for the sake of someone else’s beliefs. Why should someone else’s beliefs override my own? Or perhaps, as stated, it is not asking that of me at all, but only to be tolerant and strive to live with those who do not think like me. But as mentioned, that may lead to a head-on collision that could come to expression in reality.
I’ll try to give an example. Let us imagine, for example, a world in which there are two people and one banana tree. Let’s say they both believe that there is an entity that created them and this banana tree, and that it commands them to share it equally. Seemingly, in that situation there should be no problem. They can exist in harmony without any issue. But let’s complicate matters. Let’s say one of them believes that this entity told him that the tree belongs to him alone, while the other claims the very same thing—that the tree belongs to him alone, because that is what was told to him from Heaven. In that case there is a frontal contradiction between beliefs. So what is the meaning of the tolerance, inclusion, and listening that multiculturalism keeps talking about? True, it may say that a compromise can always be reached, but on the other hand, one can always find beliefs among people that clash. So what is the point of this whole foolish idea? In my opinion, there is no point and no meaning to it at all.
In summary, my opinion is that multiculturalism can go on until tomorrow speaking in very abstract and theoretical terms, but when one tries to apply these principles on the ground, they come into direct conflict with the basic human impulse—to live according to one’s path and one’s belief (which one thinks is true, as stated, since you cannot tell a person not to believe what he believes unless he is convinced otherwise). If so, then as any scientist with common sense would claim: when the theory does not align with reality, then either it must be changed or it must be corrected. Or even thrown out entirely. Does the Rabbi agree with what I’m trying to say?
Good night
Answer
This is still a very general question (and a very long one). It is clear that you are angry, and with some justification, but in all this long text you did not define what multiculturalism is, and it is hard to discuss it that way. It seems you are venting more than asking. I’ll respond briefly.
Multiculturalism usually does not deal with the question of truth, but with different cultures and the relations between them. Should a state or a group aspire to a melting pot that unifies the cultures and creates one culture, or is it preferable to preserve the diversity and give each one its place? That has no direct connection to postmodernism. One can advocate that even if one is a complete monist on questions of truth and falsehood. Moreover, even on questions of truth and falsehood there is room for tolerance toward other opinions that are not correct (in your view).
It is true that sometimes people use the idea of multiculturalism (though this “idea” is not very deep) in postmodern directions, that is, they apply it to questions of truth, but that is not multiculturalism itself.
In short, multiculturalism is expressed in questions like what they will cook on food reality shows (gefilte fish, or also Middle Eastern or Indian food) and what music they will play on radio stations. Here there is no truth. Questions of economic right and left, or political-diplomatic right and left, are not connected to multiculturalism but to tolerance and openness.
It goes without saying that academic fields in which this topic is usually taught generally belong to the realm of pseudo-academia. That is, they are almost worthless and are often staffed by people who are not especially intelligent (well, they also need to make a living, no?).
If you want to discuss a more concrete question, formulate it clearly, briefly, and in a focused way.
Discussion on Answer
I completely agree. Atheists and liberals also need religion. Beyond that, people with low abilities have to create fields of study for themselves that will also be considered academic and scholarly, so they can enjoy the halo of the natural sciences and the serious professions. Multiple intelligences—I already said that, no?…
Okay, I’ll try to define the concept. Multiculturalism (according to Wikipedia) is “an approach that emphasizes the importance of accepting different cultural identities (..).” In addition, it “assumes that a person can participate in several contexts and circles of identity, and move freely among them.” Now, what are identity groups? Identity groups are groups with a system of beliefs, myths, and practices that have a certain meaning.
That is on the theoretical level. What about the normative level? On that plane, a multicultural approach strives to respect and allow every person freedom, so that he can express his beliefs, customs, and way of life freely. Moreover, the multicultural approach assumes that there is a potential source for the empowerment of the individual in such a society, since he moves freely within the broad variety of different cultures, and in that way his identity is shaped. As stated, a person moves within different contexts and circles of identity, and as a result his personality is constructed.
In the structural aspect, the term refers to the distribution of power and resources, granting equal status to all cultures in a just way, and preventing deprivation and discrimination against members of weaker groups.
In the end, the roots that produce a broad variety of cultures are beliefs. Different beliefs produce different values, customs, and behaviors. In short, different cultures grow on the basis of beliefs that vary from one society to another.
So then, after all this definition, does the Rabbi think that such a view can be implemented in reality? To me it sounds like a collection of terms disconnected from what happens on the ground, because on the ground beliefs can stand in contradiction to one another. And by contradiction here I mean a substantial contradiction, that is, one expressed in a frontal clash of behaviors, not a theoretical or philosophical contradiction. A clash whose meaning is that person A believes something specific and behaves in a certain way, and person B believes the opposite and behaves the opposite way. How can such a contradiction be accommodated, if according to multiculturalism we are supposed to accommodate and accept views and beliefs different from our own?
Are things clearer now?
I’ll add one more thing. Suppose there is a culture that believes various things that produce behaviors that are plainly immoral. If so, then according to multiculturalism, if those people are not going to live in the same space with us, then let’s allow them a space in which they can express their culture freely and without interference. After all, we are supposed to accommodate and accept views and beliefs different from our own. That seems completely absurd to me, unless this is a dishonest presentation of multiculturalism. It is very hard to understand what they want.
That is exactly multiculturalism on the plane of culture and not of truth and falsehood, as I defined it.
It is entirely workable and there is no problem with it at all. Of course here and there there will be limitations, and of course here and there people will not implement it optimally. But in principle I do not see a problem there.
You are shifting this to anti-moral behavior, and I again repeat that this speaks about culture and not about values.
With respect to values, tolerance is certainly possible, but it will have limits. See my article on the price of tolerance: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA
Rabbi, what is the justification for making the distinction you make, that is, the distinction between culture and values? True, I understand the essence of the distinction, and it really does help me make a lot of sense of things. But it sounds to me like an easy way to evade dealing with the difficulties inherent in the concept of culture. According to the way you describe it, the concept of culture speaks about tastes, smells, and nothing more. That is, style of music, food, clothing, and so on. But I am not sure that this is the intuitive definition.
True, I do agree that defining the concept of culture is extremely slippery. I remember in the first course we studied in the context of culture, the lecturer sent us a list of ten videos of various professors, each trying in his own way to define the concept of culture and distinguish it from the concept of society. It was a funny phenomenon, because the class came out far more confused than it had been before.
So it is true that the definition is very blurry, but the common use of this concept, in my humble opinion, certainly includes the concept of values within it. “Culture is the totality of values, beliefs, and worldviews as they are expressed in human behavior.” That is a definition from Wikipedia, admittedly, but I think it expresses the basic intuition of most people, including the “experts” in the field. If so, the problem I presented above is still valid.
Your remarks bring me back to the question already raised at the beginning of my words: what is the justification for making the distinction between culture and values?
This is just unnecessary semantics. What I call culture is something devoid of values, and my distinction is between that and values. If you want to call something else culture—be my guest. My claim still stands, whatever you choose to call it.
My question is how this caught on so strongly, to the point of university courses and cultural eradication of anyone who thinks otherwise (see, for example, what was done to J.K. Rowling, though of course there are many examples). How are there so few people shouting, “The emperor has no clothes”?
What does the Rabbi think?
My theory is that religion and ideals are *also* a human psychological need, and these issues “sit” on that need. That is also the root of the jihad against all opponents.