The Failings of Multiculturalism

Lawrence E. Harrison of Tufts University writes in “The End of Multiculturalism” that the U.S. must be a melting pot and not a salad bowl. He presents a good case for examining immigration policies in light of the overriding imperative of preserving the culture.

A key component of a successful democratic transition is trust, a particularly important cultural factor for social justice and prosperity. . . . The high levels of identification and trust in Nordic societies reflect their homogeneity; common Lutheran antecedents, including a rigorous ethical code and heavy emphasis on education; and a consequent sense of the nation as one big family imbued with the golden rule.

Contending that multiculturalism is based on myth, Harrison prescribes some actions to prevent the creation of an underclass alienated from the upwardly mobile cultural mainstream.

The costs of multiculturalism – in terms of disunity, the clash of classes, and declining trust – are likely to be huge in the long run. All cultures are not equal when it comes to promoting progress, and very few can match Anglo-Protestantism in this respect. We should be promoting acculturation to the national mainstream, not a mythical, utopian multiculturalism. And we should take care that the Anglo-Protestant virtues that have brought us so far do not fall into disrepair, let alone disrepute.

Harrison is on much shakier ground discussing Iraq, however. He identifies Iraq and immigration as the two great disasters of the Bush presidency and claims that both result from wrongheaded forays into multiculturalism. While Harrison supports his argument on immigration, he presents no evidence in his article to support his contentions about Iraq. (In fairness, the article is excerpted from a longer version.) After noting that no Arab country is democratic and that the female illiteracy rate in some Arab countries exceeds 50 per cent, Harrison’s only statement on Iraq is contained in one paragraph:

What, then, are the implications for a foreign policy based on the doctrine that “These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society”? The Bush administration has staked huge human, financial, diplomatic, and prestige resources on this doctrine’s applicability in Iraq. It is now apparent that the doctrine is fallacious.

Here it seems that Harrison has fallen into his own multicultural trap. In saying that the values of freedom are not right and true for every person, he is essentially arguing that truth and morality are malleable. This is the very cornerstone of multiculturalism – that truth is a matter of taste and that what is true for us may not be true for others.

Certain aspects of Arab culture may indeed present formidable impediments to establishing democracy, and it may be a mistake to base our foreign policy on the imperative of bringing democracy to Iraq. But the fact that a particular culture lacks the building blocks for democracy, or even that some cultures might have a long history of disregard for basic human rights, does not change the inherent value of freedom one iota.

What Harrison calls fallacious is not the Bush policy, but the doctrine that “these values of freedom are right and true for every person.” The Bush doctrine as quoted by Harrison, however, is the antithesis of multicultural relativism.

Harrison errs, it seems, in conflating man’s nature with his culture. The culture that Harrison so vigorously defends on the issue of immigration is the one whose most eloquent statement speaks of freedom as an “inalienable right” bestowed on all men by their Creator. It is a statement about man’s nature, and surely Jefferson would apply the principle to Arabs as well. Our culture derives its strength and legitimacy from correctly discerning man’s nature and honoring his God-given rights.

Harrison may have intended to argue that all cultures do not value freedom, but that is not what he says. And, if you listen to the interview of Harrison in the podcast that accompanies his article, Harrison lays out steps for changing the culture of Brazil. Perhaps the prospects for success in Brazil are better than in Iraq, but that is not what he says either.

Harrison contends that our culture is better than others in significant ways. But when he argues that our values apply only to us and not to Arabs, he parrots the most fallacious doctrine of the multiculturalists. Multiculturalism fails to account for man’s nature. It fails to acknowledge anything that transcends culture, and therefore finds nothing that can serve as an objective standard by which to judge various cultures.