Considering "Hegemonic" Multiculturalism

What do you think? Post Comments Below!

I've been thinking about post modern multiculturalism lately: whether it's genuine or fake social phenomenon (some people are really genuine about it while others are just being politically correct for appearances' sake.) My recent readings on the subject include:

A post from Lenin's Tomb links the failures of multiculturalism with the failures of globalization (which I guess he would call pseudo-imperialism) and (European) liberal politics. What I see here is that liberal multiculturalism falls prey to the same faults as diversity, in the way that, much like humane warfare, multiculturalism and diversity can, despite their best efforts or perhaps in a form of intentional undermining of "one world" ideals, multiculturalism can actually be a way of further "othering" and alienating certain minorities from society's social, economic and cultural sphere:

"The basis of Zizek's [a purportedly liberal multiculturalist] polemic is that while once European politics was polarised between centre-right and centre-left, it is now increasingly polarised between a large pro-globalisation centre, and a smaller but growing anti-globalisation xenophobic right. The pro-globalisation centre is the hypocritical tolerant liberal who 'respects' the Other in a certain way, but only respects a non-invasive Otherness that doesn't intrude on his/her private space, this being the political space of Europe. Thus, while the centrists attack the populist right, they celebrate diversity and Otherness in the same way that 'moderate' antisemite Robert Brasillach celebrated the achievements of Chaplin, Proust and Yehudi Menuhin, while insisting that instinctive antisemitism could only be constrained by the practise of moderate antisemitism. The populist right can only be appeased by the practise of a moderate anti-immigrant racism. The example of Brasillach does, admittedly, resonate. Bourgeois politicians whipping up racism do indeed rely on the idea that there's something instinctive and commonsensical about it, and that it can only be controlled through moderate, sensible, prudent racism.

But the rest completely fails as an index of the concrete political realities on race and globalisation in Europe. First of all, when the pro-globalisation "centre" attacks the xenophobic right, it is usually not in the name of liberal multiculturalism. Rather, it is in the name of an alternative nationalism based on cohesion, integrationism, an acceptance of "legitimate concerns", and a regretful conclusion that multiculturalism (read: multi-racial society) "didn't work" and that immigration has to be severely limited while minorities are to be disciplined and coerced into internalising some core set of national or European or Western values. It is culturally dominative, hierarchical and authoritarian, not 'tolerant', libertarian or egalitarian. Official multiculturalism has its limits, but it is not to blame for the right-wing anti-immigrant turn of mainstream politics. Indeed, the tolerant liberal, Zizek's sock puppet opponent, is entirely innocent of this bullying. He, let's suppose it's a he, is obviously white, but he's not all bad. He supports attempts to attack and undermine the material legacy of white supremacy, such as affirmative action. His worst crime is that he doesn't want to hear loud rap music in the privacy of his home. (Because, as I'm sure you already know, black people uniformly walk around white neighbourhoods with ghetto blasters playing NWA's 'Fuck The Police' at top volume. White people, by contrast, play Bach on gramophones while writhing with ecstasy over Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right. This has been confirmed by our finest evolutionary psychologists - it's hard-wired behaviour, and there's nothing we can do about it.) It seems rather unfair to blame him for those who want to destroy affirmative action and purge the country of immigrants."

Disgust with such double standards is warranted, I think. Although I don't completely agree with this next essay seemingly condoning racism just because certain liberals are insincere, I was intrigued by the essay "Multiculturalism, the Reality of an Illusion." by the aforementioned Zizek. In this essay he seemingly turns on multiculturalism and calls it "hegemonic" i.e. a tool of oppression, globalization, Westernization and inequality. But can one go too far in the other direction? Can gutting multiculturalism be seen as a subtle green-light on turning a blind eye to actual racism? Lenin's Tomb also comments on this essay and exposes Zizek for what he is - not so different from his privileged, far-right counterparts:

""This is the limit of this liberal multiculturalism ... that's the tragedy of multiculturalism, how the whole space is constructed with a clear class dimension. It's always upper middle class or at least middle class who are blaming ordinary redneck guys for being racist, for enjoying their privilege ... The moment I mention this class dimension, I become a proto-fascist right-winger or whatever or whatever. No, I mean, again, the problem when you fight racism, it's the same as the Israeli settlers, don't focus on the poor guys, focus on the real culprits". To explain this reference, Zizek has previously argued against a boycott of Israeli settlements on the grounds that the settlers are poor Eastern European immigrants who are forced into settlements by the Israeli state. He goes on that yes, of course, the liberals are right about the racism of the poor, but "imagine a modest guy in that village, his son comes home beaten often, not too often, but there is this fear, occasional fights with Roma children, things are stolen from the field and so on and so on, there even was a murder in that gypsy settlement and what was offered to these people? Nothing, just culpabilising them."

I don't claim that Zizek is a fascist, or a "proto-fascist", for all that he seems anxious to provoke such reactions by, you know, championing racist mobs and vilifying gypsies. But in the UK, as you may have noticed, we have a "big problem" with gypsy travellers, immigrants, Muslims, etc - or rather, with the racist reaction to them. And the argument from the xenophobes and far right is almost identical to Zizek's: if the liberal elite love the gypsies and Muslims and immigrants so much, let them live with them. Similarly, his anecdotal demagogic style of discussing the issue of Roma is absolutely typical of the far right in Britain. Ironically, however, it is very liberal bourgeoisie that Zizek pretends to abhor that he sounds most like. It is the privileged liberal neo-Powellites, with their condescending chatter about the 'white working class', onto whom they can project their own malicious racist fantasies, and who then claim that anti-racism is a snooty, middle class ideology, that Zizek is channelling. It is their caricature of class, their pseudo-iconoclasm, their banalities, and their insulting rationalisations that he is imitating. In a sense, Zizek, the radical firebrand contrarian, is a bourgeois, conformist, national liberal at heart."

I share Lenin's Tomb's irritation with Zizek's (and those like him) contradictory and deceptive nature. But like before, I offer a word of caution: Is it accurate to describe all of the upper middle class-to-rich liberals as fake multiculturalists who wouldn't be able to deal with other races if they were the ones living nearby, unlike the stereotypically racist working man? What if some are actually genuine and hold to their beliefs even as the upper middle class-to-rich right exploit the lower classes while disparaging the poor, both white and non-white.

Isn't it really counterintuitive to attack the only people in a real position to change public opinion, since other classes want to be like them and adopt their opinions? But I guess that just reinforces the class hierarchy. As a capitalist, I wouldn't necessary have a problem with this since I believe in people being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and I don't think being rich is a sin. But as an academic I can see how class warfare is the most insidious divide and informs all other clashes conflicts and patriarchal, heteronormative oppression, including this current debate over the veracity of multiculturalism and the perennial problem of racism.

I don't think Marxism or Leninism is necessarily the answer any more than any other political stance, but therein lies its appeal. The bottom line is that problems and inequalities of class, social mobility and wealth acquisition haunt the much-talked-about issues of sexism and racial divide. Little do most people know, but if one sex, or one race is always poor and is almost never well-off, that's a class problem not a race, sex, ethnicity or insert-your-group-here problem. This, I think is another organizing idea, another harsh reality of life. Whether this situation can be resolved through revolution or improvement of the status quo is where capitalism and Communism diverge).

 Ultimately the question of multiculturalism is whether multiculturalism as a social tool of the media and society at large is necessary in order to overcome human beings' natural fear of difference - heterophobia - or whether the ideal and goal of multiculturalism is kind of forced and whether people should just let inter-personal, inter-race/religion/etc relations happen naturally. How one feels about multiculturalism depends on how one feels about human nature and people act accordingly. But of course class factors into how one is going to feel about difference and this leads to how upper classes judge the lower classes for their lack of acceptance and tolerance and how those in-the-know attribute this distaste to class and whether class, the actual problem, will ever be removed.

- Ryu