One of the hallmark characteristics of our modern world is multiculturalism. As Bill Bryson points out in his book, The Mother Tongue, “If you drew a map of Europe based on languages, it would bear scant resemblance to a conventional map” (Bryson, 1990). Most countries of the world are pluralistic. With notable exceptions, such as homogenous Iceland, most countries are composed of multiple linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This has been, and continues to be an ongoing source of conflict in our world and nations. Since every culture has it’s own unique traditions, understandings, values and language, there is not a mechanism within these cultures to deal with the clashes between them. Liberalism is a social and political philosophy, which rest on the tenet that each culture should be free to choose it’s own destiny. Under liberalism, individuals within a culture are entitled to retain or reject the culture they were born under and the government and state institutions are not owned by any specific culture within a country. These institutions are founded on the ideology of allowing cultural freedoms. With the globalized marketplace, the political homogenizing of Europe, and cultures from one country migrating to another, liberalism is the world’s best hope for rationally accommodating the legitimate demands of people from diverse cultures and ethnic backgrounds. This essay will look at academic stances on the position and then further use these notions to explore concrete examples in which liberalism must weigh in conflicts between cultures and the state.
In the past, it may have been possible to avoid considerations of multiculturalism, since societies tended to be more homogeneous and had less contact with other cultures. Today, this has changed and will continue to change since “ever increasing travel and communication has made the world a smaller place: people from different cultures and civilizations are interacting with each other at unprecedented rates” (Farrell). This increased contact in the 20th and 21st century has been riddled with conflict. A quick glance at the headlines on any day of any major news media site is enough to effectively make this case. From ISIS in the Middle East, to minorities in Russia being denied political autonomy, to Scotland’s recent vote to succeed from the United Kingdom, there is good reason why two cultures coming together is often described as a “culture clash” (CNN, 2014).
Liberalism is a political philosophy that strives to be inclusive of all cultures. Rather than being a static belief, liberalism must be a dynamic lens of understanding that is capable of coping with the demands of changing and immigrating cultures. Tension arises when there are cultures, which have conflicting values within a society that embraces liberalism. Joseph Raz writes that it is “in principle impossible to articulate comprehensively all the relevant moral considerations which we are aware of, and impossible to state in general how much they weigh against each other in situations of conflict” (Raz, 2012). What he means it that liberalism cannot be expressed mathematically. Philosophically, it is inductive, not deductive and the rules of logic such as identity do not apply to it. For “social situations can change in such a way that the very concepts we employ to understand and analyze them become inapplicable, thus making the principles of social science and of evaluative political morality inapplicable” (Raz, 2012). The point Raz is trying to get across is that Liberalism must be able to adapt to societal, technological and cultural changes for it to continue to be relevant now and in the future. Liberalism must not be principle based, but must have situational awareness in order to cope with changing demographics and values of a culture, while never elevating any culture or tradition as more valuable than another.
A problem arises from this line of reasoning. If liberalism must consider all cultural values as equivalent, what does liberalism have to say about cultures, which have values contrary to liberalism? One-way out of this is not to consider liberalism a culture, but the way of navigating the space between cultures. Liberalism is not a culture; it is a stance on all cultures. It emerged as a way to deal with the growing demands of multiculturalism. It seems an oxymoron that liberalism accepts and champions preserving cultures that seek liberalism’s destruction. As Joseph Raz eloquently explains the dilemma in his essay “Multiculturalism A Liberal Perspective:”
Since its respect of cultures is conditional and granted from a point of view outside many of them, there is little surprise that it finds itself in uneasy alliance with supporters of those cultures, sometimes joining them in a common front while at others turning against them to impose ideals of toleration and mutual respect, or to protect the members of those very cultures against oppression by their own group. (Raz, 2012).
The key word in this statement is “conditional.” Liberalism as a political philosophy is most concerned with citizen’s public life. Under liberalism the greatest allowances must be made for people to practice their culture in private. They should be allowed to do this so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other citizens. It is easier to explore this issue with a specific example. Currently there are around 2.6 million Muslims in the United States, comprising less than one-percent of the population (though this is set to more than double in the next 20 years) (Grossman, 2011). Most religious Muslims come from an Arabic ethnic background (Grossman, 2011). Within certain Arabic sects, it is permissible to force a child into an arranged marriage with an adult. The United Nations sees a forced marriage as an abuse of human rights sits it deprives one individual (the one being forced to marry) of the freedom to make his or her own choices. The United States backs this view. So while the liberal US government is dedicated to liberal values when it comes to multiculturalism, this value cannot be accepted due to its infringing upon another person’s basic human rights.
Yet preventing an arranged marriage could also be seen as infringing upon a person’s religious freedom. Mormons had a similar conflict between religious culture and the law for their practice of polygamy. Today polygamy is illegal in every state. But this was not always the case. Polygamy was widely practiced between 1847 and 1857 in the territory that is now the state of Utah (Leo, 1994). It has also been estimated that there may be up to 100,000 individuals living in a family unit composed of an illegal polygamatic relationship (Hagerty, 2008). Here is a clear-cut situation of a conflict between a cultural norm and a legal reality and a case in which liberalism must either side with the state or with the cultural institution.
The Morril Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law in 1862 by President Lincoln and made polygamy illegal in all US states and territories. Raz believes that the most “fundamental dialectical element” for a functioning liberalism is that it must not take cultures in their own estimation (Raz, 2012). This means that as soon as liberalism begins to engage in a debate with a culture or sub-culture on the merits of a certain component of that culture, liberalism fails. Liberalism leaves it to cultures to engage in that discussion. Liberalism must work, blindly of culture, to establish what it considers important regarding the freedom of individuals. This standard must be applied to all citizens equally. As such, liberalism is a secular mentality, which might cause the ire of some religious groups who would prefer to combine more closely the values of their religion with the values of their culture. But history is littered with examples of how disastrous combining those two areas of civic life can be.
As soon as liberalism makes a pact with any specific religious or cultural tradition, it has ceased being liberalism and becomes something else entirely. John Locke in his treatise, “A Letter Concerning Toleration: Humbly Submitted” writes ““No peace and security among mankind—let alone common friendship—can ever exist as long as people think that governments get their authority from God and that religion is to be propagated by force of arms” (Locke, 1689).
Liberalism must be seen as the egg from which the chicken of a pluralistic culture hatches. Liberalism is the blueprint for a best-case-scenario society. Joseph Raz is quick to point out that even at it’s best, liberalism will be unable to address every cultural need and desire since sometimes these clash with other cultures or with the laws of the land. He does not believe that there is such thing as an ideal situation. This is why he writes that it is the “of pessimism nourished by perception of conflict as inevitable, and its resolution as less than ideal, regardless of who wins” under which he makes a case for liberalism (Raz, 2012). He recognizes that inevitably some cultures will be overshadowed by others and that those dying cultures will not die quietly and will see every incursion into their society as an affront to their existence.
However, liberalism in its dedication to preserve cultures must also be dedicated to letting cultures and language run their natural course with an attitude of non-interference. For “Multiculturalism insists on a right of exit, that is, the right of each individual to abandon his cultural group” (Raz, 2012). As long as “process is not coerced, does not arise out of lack of respect for people and their communities, and is gradual, there is nothing wrong in it” (Raz, 2012).
Liberalism, if it is to be effective, must focus not on cultural groups but on every citizen. An effective liberalism will be concerned with providing each citizen with his or her basic human rights as defined by the United Nations. One of these rights will be the freedom to choose the cultural tradition, which they were born into, or the choice to reject that in favor of a more attractive, perhaps modern, culture. America is seen as a melting pot because it brings so many distinct cultures together. Unlike England, where some fourth generation immigrations still do not speak the national language (Clarke, 2013) migrants in America are much more likely to assimilate more quickly to the dominant culture. Liberalism must not weigh in on whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, but must leave it up to the individual. Because “one’s devotion to and love of one's culture in no way depends on believing it to be better than others” (Raz, 184). So while the decline of a culture might be frightening to that culture, a liberal society would see that as a culture running its course. The government is there to allow them free reign to undertake whatever members of that culture feels necessary to preserve their culture, so long as they are not violating the law or infringing upon another rights.
As the world’s cultures become closer and closer, there is a deep need for a system of government and political philosophy that is capable of dealing with the clashes that will occur between cultures. While liberalism has no ideal form, and is subject to changing with emerging technology and cultural changes, it is the world’s best hope for rationally accommodating the legitimate demands of people from diverse cultures and ethnic background. It does this by not operating within a specific background, and instead focusing on individual freedoms and rights. While there are plenty examples in the world of liberalism being unable to prevent all cultural clashes, in the 21st century has shown that with a liberal perspective in place, cultures can and do live in relative peace and harmony
References:
Bryson, B. (2001). The Mother Tongue. New York: William Morrow Paperbacks;.
Hagerty, Barbara (2008). "Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy". National Public Radio: All Things Considered.
Lyman, Edward Leo (1994), "Statehood for Utah", in Powell, Allan Kent, Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press.
Locke, J. (n.d.). A Letter Concerning Toleration. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htmThe Second Generation: 'Migrants' or 'Natives'? (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2014, from http://themigrationist.net/2013/03/01/the-second-generation-migrants-or-natives/
Raz, Joseph (2012) “Multiculturalism: A Liberal Perspective”
Farrel, R. “Is Liberalism a Universal Culture?”
