INTRODUCTION

Cultural diversity is posing a challenge to states around the world as various

governments are facing demands from cultural minorities for recognition, protection
and political autonomy etc within the territory of the state. There has been a rise of
cultural diversity in various countries due to a number of factors – demise of
communism in Eastern Europe leading to demands of nationalism, rise in attraction of
communitarian thinking in the 1980s, increase in Muslim immigrants to Western
Europe in the 1970s, emergence of indigenous peoples’ movements demanding
correction of historical injustices meted out to them, increased political activism of
religious conservatives in the US in the 1980s and migration of people due to war or
seeking better economic opportunities. As a result, a number of questions have
become unavoidable in political theory, from the role of state in dealing with such
cultural diversity to limits of toleration, nature of citizenship and rights of women.

CULTURE AND IDENTITY

Before discussing the concept of multiculturalism, it is important to know issues of
culture and identity from which the idea of multiculturalism flows. In a macro sense,
culture is the way of life for people, their values, beliefs and practices. There is
difference between culture and nature. Culture is passed on from one generation to the
other by learning rather than through biological inheritance. Culture, thus,
encompasses tradition, religion, language, moral principles and social norms. Identity
politics or the politics of difference is increasing recognition of cultural differences in
a society. The concept of culture is central to multiculturalism. Different meanings
have been attached to culture by different theorists and this in turn has shaped their
ideas on multiculturalism. Identity is a sense of unique and separate selfhood and sees
individuals embedded in a particular culture or social context. Identity may be
multiple like gender, religion, ethnicity etc. Identity is equated with difference as
awareness of difference further magnifies an individual’s sense of identity. This has
led to politics of recognition, thereby meaning difference should be embraced. This
reflects a shift from universalism to particularism. The post-colonial theories that
were formulated after the Second World War became the basis of identity politics.
They sought to challenge and even overturn the cultural dimension of imperial rule by
establishing the legitimacy of non-western and even anti-western political traditions
and ideas. Edward Said had developed a critique of Eurocentrism through his notion
of Orientalism. He argued that western hegemony over the Orient had been
maintained by stereotypical portrayal of non-western people to demean and belittle
them. With the rise in international migration and globalization, there has been
intensification of identity politics around the globe.

MULTICULTURALISM – MEANING AND CONCEPT

Cultural diversity has been a feature of various societies for a long time. Different
dialects and traditions existed in ancient Greece. In the Ottoman Empire, minorities
like Christians and Jews existed apart from the Muslims who were in a majority. In
the contemporary context, there are countries like India, Canada, the US, UK, New
Zealand, France etc who have cultural diversity. Due to the factors mentioned in the
introduction, cultural diversity has increased around the world and highly
homogenous countries like Japan are becoming rare examples. Diversity can be of
many types and some of the main types of diversity are:

(A) Religious Diversity: India is a good example of a country with diverse cultures.
The religious groups often differentiate from each other through factors like dress
code, public holidays, festivals and practices related to their celebration.
(B) Diversity based on Location: There may be groups who see themselves as distinct
from others due to their specific geographical location. For ex, in the UK, Scots
distinguish themselves from others due to their location in the north, although their
culture is not significantly different from others.
(C) Linguistic Diversity: Language is another basis for the existence of diversity in a
country. Some examples include Quebec in Canada, Uyghurs in China and Catalans
in Spain.
(D) Racial Diversity: Existence of different physical features gives rise to diversity
based on race. However, these differences should lead to a common identity which
can differentiate that group from others. One example is Hutus and the Tutsis in
Rwanda. It should be mentioned that race has a limited role in multicultural discourse.

Multiculturalism appeared in political theory in the 1970s and the 1980s when it was
used to denote a shift in public policy away from assimilation of ethnic minorities and
immigrants towards integration and acceptance of diverse cultures in countries like
Canada and Australia. In the US, the debate on multiculturalism started in the 1980s
in the context of how the education system should respond to cultural diversity. The
term multiculturalism is used to describe a society in which different cultures can
coexist. It signifies attempts to balance diversity against cohesion. Multiculturalism
not only recognises cultural diversity, but also advocates that such differences should
be respected and publicly affirmed. It maintains respect for cultural differences and
does not favour assimilation of minority culture into the dominant one. Instead of
seeking a melting pot in which minority groups assimilate into the majority culture,
multiculturalism uses metaphors like salad bowl or glorious mosaic where the
minorities can maintain their distinctiveness. From the multiculturalism perspective,
the public policy should not aim for standardization of cultural forms or any type of
uniformity or homogeneity, but instead, heterogeneity should be maintained. There
are differences among various thinkers on how this has to be achieved. Some argue
that minority groups should be tolerated by leaving them free from state interference,
also called as politics of indifference. Others argue that mere toleration of group
differences falls short of treating the minority groups as equals and there is a need for
recognition and positive accommodation of minority group practices through
difference sensitive policies.
In his book, The Multiculturalism of Fear (2000), Jacob T Levy has divided the
difference sensitive policies into eight categories. These eight categories are:
(A) Exemptions from Generally Applicable Laws: Exemptions are based on negative
liberty pertaining to non-interference of state in certain matters as it could increase the
burden on a certain group. For ex, religious exemptions can be extended to a minority
group so that they can maintain their identity.
(B) Assistance Rights: Certain rights are extended to rectify disadvantage experienced
by a certain group in comparison to the majority. This includes positive
discrimination or affirmative action to help the minorities. Examples include funding
for schools meant for minority languages.
(C) Symbolic Claims: This means that all the cultures are represented by the symbols
of a country on the grounds of equality. Not including the symbols from minority
cultures could be seen as lack of respect and unequal treatment towards them.
(D) Recognition: It is a demand to integrate a cultural practice or a specific law into
the larger society. For ex, inclusion of the history of Indian and Pakistani immigrants
in British history books shows the recognition of these two groups in British
multicultural society.
(E) Special Representation Rights: They are intended to safeguard the groups which
have been systematically marginalized in a bigger society. For ex, extra seats may be
set aside for the minorities in the parliament of a diverse nation.
(F) Self-Government: The cultural minorities may claim certain degree of autonomy
under demands for self-government. This is required so that they can develop and
preserve their culture.
(G) External Rules: It involves restricting the freedom of other people to preserve a
certain culture. For ex, outsiders have limited freedom of movement in the areas
inhabited by Aborigines. Outsiders even do not have the rights to buy land in these
areas.
(H) Internal Rules: These rules restrict an individual’s behaviour within the group.
For ex, if somebody disobeys rules of the group, he/she can be ostracised or
excommunicated. There is difference of opinion whether such internal rules are
compatible with liberal values or not. Will Kymlicka believes such rules undermine
an individual’s autonomy and hence, are incompatible with liberal values. In contrast,
Chandran Kukathas argues that since liberals are committed to tolerance, such internal
restrictions in certain groups should be tolerated.
Apart from the above mentioned categories, multiculturalism has been used as an
overarching term to signify the political and moral claims of other marginalized
groups like women, people with special abilities and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
and Transgender). Multiculturalism is not restricted to claims of culture and identity
alone, as some critics have often pointed out. Instead, it is also a matter of political
power and economic interest since it involves demands to rectify political and
economic disadvantages suffered by people due to their membership of a
marginalized group. It is pertinent to mention that multicultural policies are not
primarily about redistributive justice (share in resource allocation), but they may
accidently refer to redistributive justice. Freedom from domination is one of the
reasons why there is a need for multiculturalism, according to some experts. They
argue that one can be unfree even if he/she is not experiencing any interference, for
ex, a slave of a benevolent master. Here, special accommodation is not driven by a
desire to protect valuable cultures or considerations of equality, but the desire to
reduce domination. Some others who write with a postcolonial perspective give
importance to historical background, as is the case with aboriginal sovereignty. They
contend that history of state oppression of a group should be the main factor in
deciding whether group rights should be extended or not to that particular group.

MODELS OF MULTICULTURALISM
Ayelet Shachar gives two types of multiculturalism – strong and weak. Strong
multiculturalism is centred on group identity and group rights and it gives rights to the
group over its members. The central problem for strong multiculturalists is injustice
among different groups. In contrast, weak multiculturalism focuses on intra-group
complexities and accommodation. The main focus is on how to harmonise individual
rights with group rights. According to Andrew Heywood, there are three main models
of multiculturalism: liberal, pluralist and cosmopolitan.

(A) Liberal Multiculturalism: Commitment to freedom and toleration are two

hallmarks of liberalism. Toleration is a willingness to allow existence and expression
of rival views. Liberalism gives an individual the right to choose his/her beliefs,
cultural practices and way of life. However, toleration extends to values, views and
social practices that are compatible with autonomy and personal freedom. Practices
such as forced marriages and female circumcision will not be endorsed by liberal
multiculturalists as they are against individual freedom. Will Kymlicka’s theory on
liberal multiculturalism is one of the most important, as he combines the liberal values
of equality and autonomy with the value of cultural membership. His views are
expressed in his books, Liberalism, Community and Culture (1989) and Multicultural
Citizenship (1995). According to Kymlicka, culture is important to individuals for
two reasons. First, membership of a culture is an important condition of personal
autonomy as they serve as ‘contexts of choice’ and provide meaningful options by
which an individual frames his life and goals. Second, cultural membership is
important in shaping self-identity of an individual. A person’s self-respect is
connected to the respect that is accorded by others to his/her culture. He further
argues that since cultural minorities are disadvantaged in accessing their own culture
compared to members of majority culture, minorities are entitled to special rights. He
says that it is impossible for the state to be completely neutral and its involvement in
the cultural character of the state is unavoidable. For ex, the public holidays that a
government decides to observe would promote a certain culture and those who do not
share the culture promoted by the state would be disadvantaged. True equality,
according to him requires different treatment for different groups. Kymlicka has listed
three types of minority rights or group differentiated rights. First, there are self-
government rights which belong to the national minorities. Examples would include
Native Americans and Maoris in New Zealand. Second are the polyethnic rights
which help religious and ethnic minorities and have been developed through
immigration to main their culture. For ex, legal exemptions could be extended to Jews
and Muslims from animal slaughtering laws in a country. Third, there are special
representation rights that try to rectify underrepresentation of minorities in public life,
for ex, the affirmative action in the US. Kymlicka argues that multicultural citizenship
and minority rights give minority groups external protections against outsiders. They
do not aim to allow the groups to restrict the autonomy and rights of their own
members. Kymlicka does not grant right to intervene to the liberal state in the illiberal
groups who restrict the freedom of their own members.

(B) Pluralist Multiculturalism: This theory of cultural diversity is based on value

pluralism, an idea that there are many values which are equally correct and
fundamental although they may be in contradiction to each other. Isaiah Berlin is one
of the main proponents of the idea of value pluralism. In this view, liberal views like
personal freedom and democracy have no greater moral authority than their rival
beliefs. This results in live and let live type of multiculturalism. However, Berlin was
of the view that value pluralism can exist only within a society that respects individual
freedom. Hence, he could not prove how liberal and illiberal cultures could coexist in
the same society. Bhikhu Parekh has also given his views on pluralist
multiculturalism. He argues that multiculturalism is neither a political doctrine nor a
philosophical school. Instead, it is a perspective on the way of viewing human life. It
has three central tenets. First, human beings are culturally embedded and they grow
and live within a culturally structured world. Their thoughts are deeply shaped by
culture and they can overcome some, but not all of its influences. Second, different
cultures have different meanings of good life. Since each culture can develop limited
range of human capabilities and can understand only a part of human existence as a
whole, it requires other cultures to stretch its imagination and expand its intellectual
boundaries. It also guards against any tendency towards absolutism in any culture. An
individual’s life is likely to be richer if that person has access to others and in an
interdependent and modern world, culturally self-contained life is impossible. Third,
every culture is internally plural, its different strands of thought are in continuous
conversation and hence, its identity is fluid, open and plural. Various cultures grow by
conscious and unconscious interaction with each other and each carries bits of the
other within itself. Multiculturalism, according to Parekh, is a creative interplay
between these three factors. He further argues that from a multicultural perspective, a
society does not commit itself to a particular political doctrine or vision of good life.
It also does not ask how much diversity to tolerate within the limits set by it as it
forecloses its future development. Multiculturalism begins by accepting the
desirability and reality of cultural diversity and structures its political life accordingly.
It is a dialogically constituted society which wants to keep the continuous dialogue
and nurture an atmosphere where boundaries of prevailing forms of thought can be
expanded to generate collectively acceptable policies and principles. Such a society
does not give any priority to any cultural perspective, be it liberal or otherwise. There
are certain institutional preconditions that are a prerequisite for dialogue like equal
rights, freedom of expression, participatory public spaces, an accountable authority
and empowered citizens. It also calls for political virtues like tolerance, concern,
mutual respect, self-restraint, love for diversity, a mind open to new ideas and ability
to live with unresolved differences. Such a society nurtures wide range of ideas and
fosters the spirit of dialogue. By doing this, it draws a line against those who are too
dogmatic or self-righteous to participate in its conversational culture and accept its
outcome.

(C) Cosmopolitan Multiculturalism: It celebrates diversity as each culture can learn

from the other and prospects for self-development are offered by a world of wider
cultural opportunities and lifestyle choices. It endorses exploration of different
cultural options from an individual’s perspective. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism
embraces the idea of multiple identity and hybridity. It is argued that irrespective of
their different cultural origins, people share the same planet and are facing similar
experiences and challenges. Hence, global consciousness and the idea of
cosmopolitanism is a running thread in this type of multiculturalism.
SECOND WAVE OF WRITINGS
There have been two waves of writings on multiculturalism. The first wave discusses
differences among various cultural groups and the debate is centred on relevance of
difference-sensitive policies in a liberal context. Some liberals have defended these
policies while others argue that they deviate from the core values of liberalism as they
undermine the notion of equal individual rights and equal treatment. In the second
wave, the writers are not concerned about justice among various groups but within
groups. They analyze the policies that protect minority cultural rights and their impact
on group members. Multicultural policies may give leaders of minority cultures power
for decision making and institutionalising practices that persecute the internal
minorities. Here, issues related to women and minority cultural groups like gay,
lesbian and bisexuals can be discussed. Gay, lesbian and bisexual persons want to
lead a life of dignity, freedom and access to welfare provisions. A variety of social
controls and norms are exercised by the minority groups to marginalize them. They
face hate speech, violence and psychological harassment.
Feminists have argued that most cultures in the world are patriarchal and gendered
and group differentiated rights would reinforce and strengthen patriarchal practices.
Polygamy and female genital mutilation are two such examples that go against
women’s rights. Some writers have even highlighted that there should be no cruelty
against animals and group rights can put interests of animals at risk. Some cultural
groups engage in animal slaughtering and exemptions to them from state laws on
animal cruelty would continue violence against animals.

LIMITATIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM
A number of drawbacks of multiculturalism have been highlighted by many experts.
In contrast to the group differentiated notion of equality, Brian Barry has advocated
universal notion of equality. He says that religious and cultural minorities should be
ready to face the consequences of their practices and beliefs, in the same way as
members of majority culture are held responsible for bearing the consequences of
their beliefs. He argues that special accommodation is justified for the people with
disabilities as any disability limits a person’s opportunities compared to others who do
not suffer from disability. In contrast, religion and culture do not affect whether
someone has an opportunity, although they may impact one’s desire to take any
opportunity or not.
Some progressive theorists believe that multiculturalism fails to address the
grievances of the disadvantaged sections of society. They say that the real problem of
minorities is not lack of cultural recognition, but their lack of economic power and
social status (issues of class). By focusing on cultural distinctiveness, multiculturalism
divides the people who want social reform and reduction in poverty. This in turn,
reduces support for welfare policies as the society is divided and forgets issues like
poverty that could unite them. According to Amartya Sen, multiculturalism is based
on solitarist theory. He argues that multiculturalism leads to miniaturization of
humanity as identity is associated with a single social group. It makes violence more
likely as people identify with their own group and sometimes fail to recognize rights
of other groups. Conservative and nationalist thinkers believe that multicultural
societies are internally divided where violence and hostility are accepted facts of life.
People generally are drawn to others with whom they share their identity and they
would distrust someone who is different in some ways of life. Nationalists, therefore,
would like to limit immigration and assimilate the minority cultures to strengthen
national identity instead of particular identities.
Highlighting the problem of minorities within minorities, feminists argue that group
differentiated rights are used by men to strengthen and perpetuate their power in a
group and women are marginalized in such an environment. They also say that
multiculturalism reinforces gender inequality in minority groups.

CONCLUSION
Cultural diversity like religion, linguistic and racial continues to be a feature of many
states around the world. In political theory, multiculturalism appeared in 1970s and
1980s in countries like Canada and Australia which tried to move away from policies
focusing on assimilation of ethnic minorities and immigrants towards integration and
acceptance of diverse cultures. Instead of seeking a melting pot in which all
differences assimilate, multiculturalism stands for something like a salad bowl where
the constituents retain their identity. It does not seek uniformity or standardization,
but it tries to maintain heterogeneity. Multiculturalism stands for recognition and
positive accommodation of minority group practices through difference sensitive
policies like exemptions, assistance rights, external rules and internal rules. There are
three main models of multiculturalism – liberal, pluralist and cosmopolitan. There are
two waves of writings on multiculturalism. The first wave highlights issues between
various groups while the second wave talks of internal problems within a group like
subordination of women to men. The idea of multiculturalism has been criticised by
many, but one should also keep in mind that multicultural citizenship stands for fairer
terms of integration and not separation or division as highlighted by its critics. It also
tries to increase participation of the groups that were previously oppressed.