7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

Rethinking multiculturalism
GURPREET
MAHAJAN

Plural, diverse and multicultural are terms commonly used

to describe
societies that comprise of different religions, races, languages
and
cultures. In everyday conversation these words are applied
interchangeably, the assumption being that each of these expressions
represents the same thing – namely, the presence of many, different
communities. While it is true that plural, diverse and multicultural point
to the existence of ‘many’, it is less realized that they embody three
quite distinct conceptions of ‘many’. The idea of multiplicity and
difference that they incorporate are dissimilar in significant ways. Far
from being synonyms they are discrete concepts with distinct
meanings,
contextual parameters and symbolic spaces. It is this
dissonance in meaning
that we need to apprehend if we are to
understand both the discourse on
multiculturalism and its relevance in
contemporary political theory.

Let us begin with the concept of plural. Plurality

suggests the presence
of many but it does not stipulate anything about the
nature of many.
How the multiple forms are structured, and how they relate
to one
another, are aspects on which the idea of plurality is silent.
Consequently, the many that it denotes could be manifold
representations of
‘one’; they could even be reducible to a single
unified whole.
Alternately, the ‘many’ may be separate and unequal
entities. As such,
they may occupy different positions along a
continuum; at times the many may
be hierarchically arranged. All these
possibilities can be envisaged within
the concept of plurality. Thus, for
instance, the existence and worship of
many, different gods makes
Hinduism a plural religion even though the many
are, in the ultimate
analysis, reducible to one supreme God.

Similarly, we may speak of a multiracial society as a

plural society
even when the different races are related to each other in a
relationship
of domination and subordination. Then again, we may see
different
caste communities in India as a sign of its plurality, even though
these
castes are hierarchically arranged. In another context, we could refer
to
plural associations and plural centres of power within society, each of
which seek to influence the centre – the ‘one’ that constitutes the
core.
We may associate the presence of many interest groups in a society
with pluralism even when some groups are relatively powerless. Even
when the
lobbying groups are all members of one and the same class,
the presence of
several groups is seen as an indicator of its plural
character. This is the
idea of pluralism that political theorists used in
their study of
industrialized western societies, and it is on the basis of
this
understanding that they distinguished between totalitarian and
democratic
polities. Here again, plurality symbolized the presence of
more than one,
but that is all.

The existence of ‘many’ became a sign of democracy in

the 20th
century because the presence of one, for instance, one ideology,
one
https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 1/8
7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

political party, one electoral candidate, was regarded to be a sign of

state coercion. Hence, the presence of many – associations, interest
groups, political parties and so on – was seen as a minimum condition
of
freedom. The fact that these many entities may express one and the
same
ideology was an aspect that did not diminish the democratic
content of a
system. While this reading of democracy was insensitive to
structures of
inequality that continued to exist in these societies despite
the presence
of a multitude of groups, it was correct in one small
respect: the presence
of many is a precondition for the recognition of
difference. We need to
acknowledge the presence of many before we
can speak of difference and
diversity.

To say this is not to suggest a necessary connection

between the
concept of plurality and diversity. Plurality merely suggests
the
presence of many; diversity points to the existence of many that are
different, heterogeneous and often incommensurable. To put it in
another
way, when we speak of diversity we refer to multiplicity that is
not
collapsible into one. The many, in this conception, are discrete and
separate entities that are different from one another. The difference in
fact limits comparison.

It was this notion of difference and diversity that

German historians
developed in the mid-18th century. Theorists of
Enlightenment in
England and France noted the existence of plural cultures
and
civilizations. However, in keeping with their understanding of
plurality,
they arranged these cultures hierarchically. The history of
humankind,
in their view, represented progress – from the dark ages to the
civilized,
enlightened present. In making this assessment the Philosophes
used
their contemporary sensibilities to judge all other cultures, and it
was
from the perspective of their own historical world that other
civilizations in the past, as well as existing non-industrial, absolutist
regimes, seemed to be lagging behind.

The German historians, from Herder to Ranke, used the

idea of cultural
diversity to question this judgement of the Enlightenment.
They argued
that human history was constituted by discrete and heterogeneous
cultures, each with its own values, moral and aesthetic norms, and
political
and economic structures. Thus, each culture was ‘in itself a
whole’1
complete, with its own centre of happiness. ‘Can it be, that
thousands are
made for one? All the generations that have passed away,
merely for the
last? Every individual, only for the species, that is for the
image of the
abstract name? The Allwise sports not in this manner: he
invents no finespun
shadowy dreams: he lives and feels in each of his
children with paternal
affection, as though it were the only creature in
the world.’2

To emphasize the authentic and unique nature of each

culture, Herder
represented them as ‘children’ of God which were
destined to carve
their own distinct identity and future. Subsequent
historians and
philosophers drew upon this idea of diversity to point to the
heterogeneity and incommensurability of different epochs and
civilizations.
However, the peculiarity of this framework was that it
accommodated
diversity only historically. That is, it maintained that
history is defined
by a succession of diverse cultures or values, but each
culture manifests a
single idea. Thus while each era was characterized
by a defined ‘spirit’
or volkgeist, historical succession provided
evidence of difference
and diversity.

https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 2/8

7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

The German historicist tradition elucidated the

distinction between
plurality and diversity. Since then the idea of
irreducible difference or
diversity has been used in a variety of
theoretical contexts. The
Occidentalists invoke this concept of diversity
when they stress the
difference between civilizations of Asia and Western
Europe and argue
that the former embody a set of values which are admirable
in
themselves. Advocates of ethno-social science also anchor their
arguments
in this conception of diversity or non-collapsible difference.
They maintain
that each society is unique in terms of its internal
structure, institutions
and values. Consequently, it must be studied in its
own terms. That is,
through the language and values internal to it,
instead of those that are
imported from outside.

At another level, this conception of diversity surfaces

in the writings of
contemporary liberals. The presence of different, and
even
incommensurable, epistemologies, perspectives, lifestyles, ideas and
moral values is, for them, the crucial test of tolerance and democracy in
society. To protect this diversity of thought and belief they favour a
procedural republic and give priority to rights. To the extent that the
fatwa
by Ayatollah Khomeini aimed to suppress this diversity of views,
liberals protested against it.

The concept of multiculturalism endorses the idea of

difference and
heterogeneity that is embodied in the concept of diversity.
Albeit, in its
discussion of diverse communities, it distinguishes between
the
majority community and the minorities. That is, the diverse cultural
communities are categorized as majority or minorities. In modern
democratic
polities the state is usually identified with the majority
culture, while
communities that differ from it are designated as
minorities. In emphasizing
the irreconcilable differences between the
majority and minority cultures,
multiculturalism locates
incommensurable differences within the boundaries
of the state. In
other words, diversity is no longer pushed outside the
boundaries of the
nation state. Further, as diverse communities coexist
within the state,
multiculturalism raises the issue of their equality. It
asks whether the
different entities, constituting the many, are granted an
equal status
within the polity.

The German historians and philosophers who spoke of

cultural
diversity, conveniently pushed differences outside the boundary of
the
state. The multiculturalists, on the other hand, place diversity within
the
borders of the nation state. Beginning with the empirical reality that
most countries today are multiethnic and multinational societies, they
examine whether these diverse communities receive equal and fair
treatment
in the public and political arena. In particular they analyze
the ideology
of liberalism and the practices of liberal nation states to
see if they
disadvantage minority communities or discriminate against
them on account of
their difference.

This concern for equality and non-discrimination of

people of minority
communities links multiculturalism to democracy in a
fundamental
way. The single most important value of democracy is
non-
discrimination. Historically, democratization has occurred through the
struggles of different people and classes against prevailing sources of
social discrimination in society. The early spokesmen of representative
democracy, such as Locke and Paine, questioned the privileged status
accorded to noble birth in the political arena. Subsequent struggles for
democracy challenged the exclusion of propertyless classes, women
https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 3/8
7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

and other
racial and religious minorities from the public domain.
Collectively, these
voices of dissent argued that distribution of political
rights must be
delinked from ascriptive identities. Since caste, class,
gender, race and
religion had been identified as sources of
discrimination, theorists of
democracy argued that community
membership must be disregarded in the
political arena. Instead,
individuals should be treated as citizens with
equal rights and
entitlements.

The concept of multiculturalism contributes to this

agenda of
democratization and non-discrimination. First, it locates cultural
identity as a source of discrimination in society. While earlier theories
focused on discrimination that occurs on account of one’s religion, race
and gender, multiculturalism points to discrimination of minority
cultures
within the nation state. Second, it argues that equality for
diverse
cultures requires a system of special, group-differentiated
rights.3
While liberals defend universal citizenship and equal rights as
the most
suitable instruments for countering community based
discrimination, the
multiculturalists support special group rights for
vulnerable minorities.

Seen thus, the

concept of multiculturalism is significantly different
from that of
plurality and diversity. While plurality simply represents
the existence of
many (more than one), multiculturalism points to the
existence of many which
are equal in the public arena. In other words,
the presence of many
different communities in itself is not enough. The
important thing is
whether they are treated as equals by the state.

Analyzing the ideology and policies of western liberal

democracies,
advocates of multiculturalism argue that in these multiethnic
and
multinational societies, minority cultures and communities are
disadvantaged in the public arena. They are disadvantaged through the
cultural orientation and practices of the nation state. The policies of the
state – e.g., those pertaining to official language, declaration of
holidays, permitted rituals, prescribed dress code in public institutions,
curricula in educational institutions, laws on marriage, divorce and
custody
of children – contain a majoritarian cultural bias. They favour
the
majority community and, at the same time, place the minority
communities at
a disadvantage.

For instance, the declaration of English as the official

language of
Canada privileges the English speaking Canadians in the public
arena
and places the French-Canadians at a disadvantage. Similarly, the
Sabbath laws in America which declare Sunday as a public holiday,
conform to
the religious practices of the Christian majority. This
disadvantages the
Jews and the Muslims. And, even seemingly neutral
laws pertaining to
compulsory education of children disadvantage the
Gypsies in Britain and the
Amish in America.4 Advocates of
multiculturalism point to state laws that make it more difficult for the
members of the minority community to compete in the public arena, as
well as
those that discriminate against minority cultures. Respect for
diversity, in
their view, implies equal space and opportunity for
different cultures to
sustain themselves. Consequently, policies that

https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 4/8

7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

homogenize populations by
disallowing culturally specific ways of life
and practices are seen as being
hostile to minorities.

While protesting
against systemic discrimination, theorists of
multiculturalism grant
positive value to cultural diversity. According to
them, the presence of
diverse cultures enriches social life. Since each
culture incorporates a
distinct conception of good life, the presence of
diverse cultures exposes
us to alternative ways of life. It provides
concrete options that we could
choose to explore and, above all,
encourages self-criticism. Encounters with
the ‘other’ makes us aware
of the limits of our own world-view and
reveals the existence of other
human projects and ways of organizing
society. As such, cultural
diversity is a valued good and the state must
make an effort to preserve
it.

Preservation of diverse cultures, particularly, minority

cultures, requires
special group rights. Classical theories of democracy
were suspicious
of group based rights because such a system of distribution
justified
apartheid. Historically, linking of political and civil rights
with
community membership had been the basis of excluding some people
from
the political arena.

In the present context where political rights have been

extended to
almost all classes of people in western democracies, the
multiculturalists question the attempt by the state to assimilate the
diverse populations. They defend group rights primarily for the purpose
of
resisting forced assimilation. At least in part, cultures are sought to
be
preserved against the homogenizing impulses of the nation state.

This conception of multiculturalism emerged at a time

when it became
evident that ethnic identities had not dissolved in market
economies
and democratic polities. The presence of ‘unmeltable’ ethnics,
despite
immigrant policies that aimed to bring in populations which could
assimilate into the new world, necessitated fresh thinking about the
nature
of political institutions in multiethnic societies. The theory and
practice
of multiculturalism was a response to this pressing concern.
Under the
banner of multiculturalism, liberal nation states, such as
Canada, provided
special status to French language, endorsed
bilingualism and devolved more
powers to Quebec – the only province
with a French majority.5
All these measures sought to ensure that
national minorities, such
as French Canadians, have a fair chance of
preserving and protecting their
linguistic and cultural identity.

Today, theories of multiculturalism reflect upon the

special but diverse
needs of the immigrant populations and indigenous
people. They
defend special land rights and self government for Native
Indians in
North America and argue that liberal democracies must develop
sensitivity towards and respect for the cultural identity of immigrant
populations. At the very minimum, they should provide opportunities
for
immigrant cultures to survive and preserve themselves. However,
ideally they
should provide minorities with a sense of involvement. For
this democracies
would need to go beyond the minimal agenda of
keeping cultures alive in the
private domain. They would have to

https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 5/8

7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

provide public and institutional

recognition to minority cultures
through a system of group rights.

According to the
multiculturalists group rights of this nature for
specific kinds of
minorities will create a more integrated society. As
minorities receive
institutional representation and their cultures survive
and flourish, they
will develop a sense of belonging and commitment to
the state.6
This would reduce ethnic conflicts and make secession an
unattractive
option. Group rights would, in this way, be an inducement
for minorities to
remain within, and develop loyalty towards, the state
of which they are at
present a part. Minority rights are envisaged here
as a special way of
incorporating people into the polity.

Theorists of multiculturalism make a distinction between

inclusion and
assimilation. The idea of uniform citizenship seeks to
assimilate diverse
populations by prescribing uniform or identical rules and
practices.
Group differentiated minority rights, on the other hand, include
people
both as citizens and as members of specific communities. It is
therefore
a non- homogenizing and non-assimilative mode of inclusion.

The association of the nation state with an agenda of

cultural
homogenization, the philosophical defence of the right to culture,
and
the justification of special rights for minorities in the form of group
representation, self-government and polyethnic rights, has won
multiculturalism many followers in contemporary times. While post-
modernists
upholding the politics of difference and minorities
struggling for a voice
in national political life find a natural ally in
multiculturalism, liberals
fear that multicultural political strategies
would strengthen community
conflicts and pose a challenge to national
unity. The feminists too are
anxious that protection granted to cultural
community practices may destroy
the limited gains that the women’s
movement has so far secured. Since most
cultures endorse and permit
control over women by men, preserving cultural
practices may well
become another way of allowing patriarchal domination in
society.
Group rights may, thus, assist in the continued subordination of
women.

The apprehensions
of the feminists and liberals are well-founded and
deserve serious
consideration. In particular, we need to examine
whether communities should
be given special rights to preserve their
culture. Should communities have
the right to protect all prevalent
practices? Are all existing practices
crucial for preserving a particular
way of life? Should the state define the
limits of permissible diversity?
Should it stipulate minimum conditions that
all cultures must adhere
to? Since cultures are not homogeneous entities,
whose voice should be
heard and counted by the state?

These are questions that need to be analyzed further

within the
framework of multiculturalism. There is also need to incorporate
the
experience of different societies and contesting communities before we

https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 6/8

7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

can arrive at a general framework or a set of principles to deal with the

special needs of diverse minorities. Above all, we need to differentiate
between rights that minorities may need to combat direct or latent
discrimination and those that are needed to preserve their culture.

The difficulties
with contemporary theories of multiculturalism arise
from the conflation of
these two quite distinct concerns relating to non
discrimination and
preservation of cultures. In their analysis of the
liberal democratic state,
multiculturalists note the contexts and policies
that discriminate against
minorities. However, while responding to the
problems faced by these
communities they recommend and justify
special rights to minorities for
preserving their culture. In making this
suggestion they postulate a link
between non discrimination and
preservation of diverse minority cultures.
This association of cultural
diversity with non discrimination provides a
powerful rationale for not
interfering with, or restricting in any way, the
existing community
practices.

So long as the Pueblo Indians define their identity in

religious terms,
they remain free to disallow conversions and punish the
convert, so as
to continue with their own distinct way of life. Communities
of Native
Americans can go on denying women, who marry outside the
community, rights to reservation land. Village communities in India can
punish individuals who disobey caste hierarchy and prescribed
marriage
rules. And some tribes may even decide to kill persons who
are designated as
evil by the holy spirits. All this and much more could
easily be justified
in the name of preserving culture. If special rights are
granted to
communities only for the sake of promoting heterogeneity,
and without
protecting intra-group equality, then multiculturalism
would be seriously
flawed.

Consequently, it is extremely important to distinguish

between policies
that are a source of discrimination of minorities from the
demand for
preserving cultures that is often presented by minorities. To
simply say
that special rights will (or should) be granted to minorities
only to
counter ‘external pressures’ that can destabilize or destroy the
minority
culture7 does not really
solve the problem. Rights which are granted to
communities to protect their
culture from threats that come from the
larger society invariably empower
the community against its own
members. Special land rights that Native
Americans need to protect
their culture against economic and political
pressures that come from
the rest of society, necessarily grant the
community the right to deny
individual claims to property that may arise
from within the
community. One cannot give the right to sustain a culture
against
external pressures without simultaneously empowering the community
against dissenting voices that exist within on that issue.

One cannot also

take recourse to the argument that ‘operative public
values'
8 that are enshrined in the Constitution can be the basis of
https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 7/8
7/28/22, 11:17 PM 484 Gurpreet Mahajan, Rethinking multiculturalism

determining what kind of diversity may or may not be protected and

preserved. Till the 1960s, shared public values in America denied the
Black
community the right to vote and in Canada the prevailing
consensus did not
extend citizenship rights to Native Americans. Thus,
the operative values
and shared public norms may themselves buttress
structures of
discrimination. As such, they cannot be an acceptable way
of prescribing the
limits of permissible cultural diversity.

In a democracy the concern for inter-group equality must

be in tandem
with the demand for intra-group equality. Consequently,
multiculturalists need to ensure that measures introduced for the
purpose of
enhancing equality between groups do not become a means
of sustaining
structures of inequality within the community. This may
be possible only
when multiculturalism dissociates special rights
granted for countering
systemic discrimination of minorities within the
nation state from rights
that may be necessary for preserving minority
cultures. Preservation of
cultural practices can be, and often is, an
excuse to continue with customs
that perpetuate discrimination of some
groups within the community; special
rights cannot be justified for this
end.

Multiculturalism has raised important questions about the

status of
minorities within the nation state. Liberal democracies are now
compelled to analyze the implications of their social and cultural
policies
to see if they discriminate against minorities. By asking
whether different
communities are treated as equals within the
democratic polity,
multiculturalism has also shown that the presence of
many, plural cultures
and communities is not enough. Within a
democracy what is necessary is that
difference must not be a source of
discrimination. It must be acknowledged,
accommodated and, above
all, given an equal position within a democratic
polity. However, this
multicultural agenda of inter-group equality must be
factored along
with the concern for intra-group equality. Without the latter
it may
become a hindrance to, rather than a support for, the struggles for
democracy.

 
1. J.G. von Herder, On
Social and Political Culture, translated and edited by F.M. Barnard,
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 188.

2. J.G. von Herder, ‘Philosophy of History’, in Outline

of a Philosophy of History, translated by T. Churchill,
Bergman
Publishers, New York, 1966, p. 229.

3. Iris M. Young, ‘Polity and Group Difference: A

Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship’, Ethics 99(2),
1989, pp. 250-74.

4. Bhikhu Parekh, ‘Equality in a Multicultural Society’,

in Jane Franklin (ed.), Equality, Institute for Public Policy
Research, London, 1997; and Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.

5. Evelyn Kallen, ‘Multiculturalism, Ideology, Policy

and Reality’, Journal of Canadian Studies 17(1), 1982, pp.
51-63.

6. Joseph H. Carens, ‘Dimensions of Citizenship and

National Identity in Canada’, The Philosophical Forum 28(1-
2),
1996-97, pp. 111-123.

7. Will Kymlicka, op. cit., pp. 35-44.

8. Bhikhu Parekh, ‘Cultural Diversity and Liberal

Democracy’, in Gurpreet Mahajan (ed), Democracy, Difference
and Social
Justice, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1998, p. 221.

https://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484 mahajan.htm 8/8