Poverty of Multiculturalism

by Patrick West

The new orthodoxy of multiculturalism decrees that no culture is superior or inferior to another, so it is impossible to say what is truly right and what is wrong. However, cultural relativists sometimes want it both ways. They simultaneously assert that no culture is better than another, but they will happily go on to say that Western culture is actually inferior, and shy away from celebrating it for fear of causing ‘offence’. Multiculturalism is a sign of the counter-Enlightenment times we live in. Since the Holocaust and Hiroshima, the West has lost faith in its capacity to use reason and science to make our world a better place. Because of their perverse self-loathing, many left-liberals lend their tacit or overt support to oppressive cultures that deny equal rights to its population or condone the killing of homosexuals and the virtual enslavement of women. By dwelling on problematic aspects of our history, like slavery and colonialism, the denigrators of the West ignore its rich and admirable tradition of social liberalism that says that individuals should be rendered as much freedom as possible in the private sphere. It is time we cherished the tradition of the Enlightenment, with its aspiration that the prizes of liberty, democracy, color-blindness, equality of opportunity and progress can be shared among all. Western culture has spawned the most open, liberal and progressive societies. Thanks to its enlightenment, it has unshackled itself from oppressive and barbarous regimes, creating states in which universal franchise, free speech and democracy are the norm and the expectation. It is time these values were cherished. It is also time to expose the poverty of multiculturalism.

Genres: Nonfiction

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

An excellent cover for a junk book. The cover says it all: the ugliest of Nationalism, something that doesn't exist even in the minds of the useful idiots gaining a good cut from the taxes by writing manuals or teaching the government dogma to the young minds. That world exists only in the minds of the children scarred by the mandatory school, those ready to die or send others to die for their leaders. And combines that ugly, deformed fake with the scare of people who just dress differently.

As for the "golden" age: Britain was a place from which people had to migrate or die. When you check the numbers it used to be far worse than Pakistan and much closer to Civil War Syria. Even much later, say after the Second World War, rationing made Britain quite as pleasant as Soviet Union and the difference was panhandling, as during the War, in the US.

[Eduardo Garcia-Gaspar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un pequeño gran libro dedicado a la comprensión del multiculturalismo: definición, desarrollo, tipos y consecuencias; con especial énfasis en el Reino Unido, pero con utilidad universal.
Breve y clara, la obra tiene el mérito de examinar este concepto con objetividad y sin la cobija protectora con que lo suelen arropar sus defensores.
Una buena lectura para quienes quieren ir más allá de lo políticamente correcto.
[una valuación de 3 estrellas significa «me gustó» y es una buena recomendación de lectura; no comprendo la tendencia a imponer cuatro o cinco estrellas a cualquier obra; reservo las cinco estrellas para unas pocas obras solamente]

[Aleksandar · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not the author's best work. I've read some of his other stuff which is of much higher quality than this book. It is fascinating how someone can be both so right and so wrong at the same time. While the author is certainly correct about the trouble with multiculturalism, he is profoundly wrong in the solution he offers, and in much of the assumptions underlying his main argument.

The book’s central idea is a distinction between “soft” and “hard” multiculturalism, the latter being the villain of the piece, and argues that hard multiculturalism (cultural relativism, as in no culture is superior to others and moral assumptions are relative and should be judged solely from the perspective of the respective culture) began with counter-Enlightenment writers such as Herder, through Fichte, evolving via Nietzsche, to Heidegger, Foucault and the postmodernists. Certainly, Herder questioned the universalism of the Enlightenment, but to argue that the man who developed the concept of Volkgeist is a multiculturalist, is to profoundly misunderstand Herder. As for Fichte, presenting a German nationalist as a precursor to multiculturalism is historically dubious at best. More fundamentally, the book conflates cultural relativism with multiculturalism, treating them as interchangeable. But advocating that cultures be understood on their own terms is not the same as promoting their coexistence within a single society. Many of the thinkers cited simply do not support multiculturalism as the author defines it. Still, the author is correct to argue that some cultures are superior to others, and saying so should not be controversial.

Secondly, and more importantly, the book proposes that the cure for hard multiculturalism is soft multiculturalism, essentially, returning to Enlightenment liberal values. Liberalism, by design, tends toward inclusion and neutrality. Soft multiculturalism, far from being a bulwark against its harder form, often serves as its gateway. So, according to the author, the solution to the problem which was espoused by liberalism, is actually more liberalism. What the author fails to appreciate is that soft multiculturalism inevitably evolves into hard multiculturalism, precisely because of liberalism (which is the offspring of the Enlightenment). It is simply a matter of numbers and time - the moment when a particular community becomes significantly present in a society numerically, they will begin to increase their demands for more cultural recognition, eventually resulting in hard multiculturalism overtime.

Finally, there are statements in the book which either did not age well (such as stating that redistributive policies work in a fairly homogenous society where multiculturalism is not encouraged, such as Sweden), or plainly wrong (such as stating that Pakistan, Turkey and Iran have democratic constitutions, or that progressives believe in the organic nature of society).

Nevertheless, though certainly dated, the book is quite short, easy and fast read, and contains some good examples (though mostly non-academic, journalistic and policy examples) against the modern multicultural condition.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite good on the nature of the problem, but the author looks to the Enlightenment as providing the principles for a free society. Over all: mixed.

[Alan Hughes · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was surprisingly good. Although sometimes the evidence base it argues from is weak, being based in newspaper and magazine articles,in general the thesis it proposes is strong. It does suggest that current attitudes are increasing ghettoization and reducing integration.

[Brian J Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being British

This is the first book that clearly defined the riptide of dogma and exposed the idiocy of successive goverment policies. I do believe that Britain has a great deal to be proud of and I also believe, based on those immigrant people I have worked with and made friends with, largely came here. not just to work but live in an open society. Sadly, in the last decade or two the multicultural concept seems to have led to a reversal of that concept, with people increasingly coming to build models of their parent countries here. This book shows clearly the follies of encouraging this approach.