What are cultural traditions for us? Why are they important? These are not the types of questions that we get to hear often. Moreover, there are certainly people who did not think about it even a single time during their whole lifetime. This may be rather surprising at the first glance because our cultural traditions seem to be so critical and essential to our lives. But after careful consideration this becomes understandable – it is bound to us this strongly that we do not even doubt or reflect on it. This, however, raises another question: should the cultural traditions be preserved or should they be allowed to be changed? A Large part of the population of any country would stand on the former side insisting that culture and traditions should be preserved at all costs. Their position and arguments are very understandable. The states we currently have, the separate nations and languages all are the results of the different cultural traditions of people in certain places. The look of our cities, their architectural image is the reflection of our values and traditions which all come from our culture. Not only the external attributes are all dependent on the culture of a specific nation, but even its behaviors, ethical norms, and psychological peculiarities originate from the cultural traditions. The traditions are, in essence, our past and the view our ancestors bestowed upon us. They encompass the rituals, the most effective ways of handling things, and practical wisdom. Cultural traditions are what makes the nations different from each other and unique. If they will be swept away, the connection with the past will be lost, which will inevitably bring the loss of the large part of our history and heritage. If the traditions are abandoned, the nation will lose its face and dissolve in the other nation. Not only the external attributes (such as rituals, language, architecture, etc.) will be lost as the result, but the essential inner qualities will also be forfeited. People experience pride for their nation, which they are part of, they take inspiration and have a spiritual bond with their ancestors through the prism of cultural traditions. This is why many claim that this cultural differences should be preserved.
The preservation of cultural traditions is an important argument in the discussion concerning the regulation of immigration. Miller states that immigration should and must be regulated politically to prevent the obliteration or irreversible change of the culture of a given society. He states that when immigration takes place, the aliens bring their culture to the environment where another culture is practiced. Several outcomes might be the result of immigration. The first one is that the immigrants will adapt to the society they will be in, adopt the culture of this society and eventually lose the connection to own former culture. The second one is that the aliens will alter the culture of the society they immigrated to in some way. In the real world, both processes happen simultaneously, however, the relative part of each of these constituents depends on the numbers of immigrants entering specific society. If many of them are coming into the culture, it may be changed irreversibly. Miller makes an example about language, when as a result of significant immigration native language of the state is getting forgotten and replaced by some international language (Miller 200). Miller proceeds with noting that in a particular state, the members of a certain culture want and have a right to decide the direction in which their native culture will develop. This right can be easily violated if there will be a large wave of immigrants which will inevitably impose changes upon the native culture which will not be controlled by the native residents. This is why, he states, the immigration should be regulated by the government.
The opposing position is put forth by Carens - he states that cultural traditions are not what matters in the morality of imposing immigration restrictions. His arguments are based on the model of ideal society proposed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice. The main points upon which Carens’s position is based are the superiority of equal democratic liberties for all the members of the society and the concept of original position. According to it, the principles and rules in a just society would be made to alleviate the native differences between people. In this model, people would devise the laws under the veil of ignorance – unaware of their natural strengths and weaknesses, so the principles adopted by such society would maximally compensate for the differences in features which are given at birth (social class, parents, nation, talents, etc.). Considering this point, the preservation of cultural traditions, as Carens (262) states, may be important to some people, but it cannot be taken as an argument in a moral debate about the status of immigration restriction. The reason is simple, the changes in culture caused by the aliens do not affect democratic liberties in any way, this is why they are irrelevant to the discussion. In an ideally just society proposed by Rawls, where people do not know where they will be born, the legislature will not likely favor some cultural ideals in favor of the quality of life. Also, it can be added here that the right of the citizens to decide the way where their culture will develop upon which Miller’s argument is based is not the human right in a moral sense. It is not a basic liberty, like the right to life or the freedom of speech, so Carens’s objection is reasonable.
The impact of preservation of cultural traditions on the restriction of immigration gets clearer if the cultural changes are looked at in detail. The cultural traditions consist of several important constituents. They are the history of a given culture, its native language, its art, rituals, cultural knowledge, and traditional forms of conduct and behavior. The traditions themselves are the form of adaptation – the basic best answers given to certain issues by the people of a distinct culture throughout history. Accordingly, in the process of change caused by the immigration, all the components mentioned above except the history itself are involved. But the change itself is necessary to human development because the answers given by our ancestors are almost always worse than present day answers and do not fit in today's standards of life. Most of these traditions do not perform the function they did at the time they were devised and remain the archaic remnants of our past which are simply uncomfortable to get rid of. The arguments in favor of culture preservation are based on the basic point that the change in culture and traditions is bad. Such position requires serious reconsideration. The forfeiture of certain native languages is inevitable in the process of globalization; the same goes for rituals and style in arts and architecture. In the course of unification, humanity compares the answers it has already given and chooses the best options. In this way the global culture is encompassing the best of all cultures is built. This is why preservation of cultural traditions cannot be regarded as a viable argument in the discussion concerning immigration regulation. It is not only inferior to the well-being of the immigrants but even has a very low intrinsic value if it is opposed to progress and development.
The arguments put forth by Miller and Carens present their opposing view on the moral permissibility of restricting immigration. Miller argues that immigration can and should be restricted because the aliens can cause unwanted changes to the cultural traditions in the state they immigrate in. Carens responds that preservation of the culture cannot be deemed an argument in the immigration restriction debate because changes in cultural traditions do not affect democratic liberties, and therefore, cannot be the basis of immigration restrictions. The changes in culture themselves are commonly regarded as unwanted and negative but I have argued that this is actually not the case and that the changes in cultural traditions are the inevitable part of progress and development of the society, so they cannot be used as an argument for immigration restrictions.
References
Carens, Joseph H. "Aliens And Citizens: The Case For Open Borders". ROP 49.02 (1987): 251. Web.
Miller, David. "Immigration: The Case For Limits". Contemporary Issues In Applied Ethics. Andrew Cohen and Christopher Heath. 1st ed. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 193-206. Print.
