Yes, multiculturalism is stupid, and everybody with a brain has already recognized that many times over. Now it is important not to let our disgust with the concept distract us from everything else that is going on:
Strange things are happening—financial crashes occur that affect our daily lives, but are experienced as totally opaque—and the rejection of multiculturalism introduces a false clarity into the situation: it is the foreign intruders who are disturbing our way of life. . . Clinging to ethnic identity serves as a protective shield against the trauma of being caught up in the vortex of non-transparent financial abstraction.
Žižek has been one of the most vocal European critics of the concept of multi-culturalism, and I think he deserves to be heard on this matter. If something becomes too easy of a target, then maybe something else is happening that is more obscured from view.
Clarissa's Blog 
I know you like this guy but it seems he’s better at pointing out problems than offering solutions.
Does he ever get around to offering some positive model?
LikeLike
Zizek is a Marxist. His positive model is a social revolution and abolition of capitalism in any form whatsoever. Since I find this part of his philosophy to be useless (to me), I don’t quote it. I don’t think anybody on my blog needs to hear why communism is a stupid idea. 🙂
LikeLike
“Revere the emperor, expel the barbarians”, heh. Don’t know about the others, but I like the idea of nation states- one state for Ukrainians, one for Poles, one for Germans etc. Makes things easier in the long run.
Oh, and I know that things in USA are different, but I don’t think England and France can withstand a large scale immigration anymore.
LikeLike
Western European countries don’t procreate at the rate that is enough to replenish population. With no immigration, they will literally die. And the chances they go back to pre-sexual revolution procreation levels are nil.
LikeLike
Makes things horrible in the long run, actually, especially for the countries in the area you’ve taken your examples from. In Eastern Europe, you have a lot of different nations sharing the same territory, a lot of enclaves of one nation surrounded by their historical enemies etc. You can’t have nation states without disaster since you can’t even draw them on the map, so if a state tries to conceive of itself as a nation state, minorities (that may have been living on that territory for 1000+ years) start getting treated horribly very fast.
LikeLike
I was beginning to think that Žižek was a good guy, but I’d better review that.
The alternative to multiculturalism is apartheid. We tried it for nearly 50 years, and it was far more stupid than multiculturalism.
And just at the time we were rejecting apartheid, Europe was eagerly embracing it. Well, Yugoslavia was anyway.
LikeLike
No, the alternative is understanding that mixing people from very different cultures together and doing nothing to help them undretand each other is likely to become explosive. Apartheid doesn’t have much to do with this. Ukraine, for instance, is monocultural but there is no apartheid.
LikeLike
—but I like the idea of nation states- one state for Ukrainians, one for Poles, one for Germans etc.
Except this idea is a complete “spherical horse in vacuum”, as the old physicist joke says. In reality most countries are de facto multicultural (for various historic reasons), so wishful thinking attempts to build mononational states at this stage will either be unsuccessful or, as Steve said, will require adopting apartheid system.
One should stop messing around trying to enforce Frenchness/Russianness/Estonianness/Tutsiness/Hutuness/etc as the primary value of the respective state, and build states based on universal humanist principles instead. Of course, that will not work very well, because humans are humans and the need for collective identity is easy to exploit, but at least that should be an official goal, and not the priority of any particular nation (I mean nation based on ethnicity, not on citizenship here) on some particular territory. And Frenchness/Russianness/Estonianness/etc should just be the specialty of said country, which is otherwise based on humanist principles. By the way, this does not mean toothless acceptance of everything, however horrible that everything might be. Any attempts to impose some medieval values should be squashed not because they come from the immigrants who must not interfere with the affairs of the “rightful owners of the country”, but because they contradict the humanist principles. Any attempts of the indigenous population to impose any medieval values on anybody should be squashed for exactly the same reason. 🙂
Shit, where is my armored car? 🙂
LikeLike
Just to define my terms before going any further
nation = country (very close to synonyms but focuses a little more on people rather than real estate and/or government)
nation =/= ethnic group
nation state = (roughly) a country with a single predominant set of social and/or linguistic norms (with or without minority and/or regional variants), the stronger one is the weaker the other can be. Also, there has to self-awareness and acceptance of the country as a functioning system.
To me, even the US (melting pot version) is a nation state while Somalia, despite it’s strong (at least for Africa) monoculturalism isn’t because it does not function as a country.
LikeLike
“One should … build states based on universal humanist principles instead.”
What are “universal humanist principles”?
LikeLike
nation = country (very close to synonyms but focuses a little more on people rather than real estate and/or government)
nation =/= ethnic group
I wish it was that simple. In fact the whole point of majority nationalism in any country I am familiar enough with is to confuse the two, and turn the country/state into a vehicle of domination (of course in official documents it is called preservation 🙂 ) of dominant ethnic group. With members of other ethnic groups being unofficially, in majority’s mind, excluded from “the nation” in your understanding of this term. Even if they possess the citizenship of the said country, the majority does not recognize their moral right to affect the affairs of the country. In other words, the country “belongs” only to members of the dominant ethnic group, not to all citizens.
LikeLike
I agree that a nation is not an ethnic group but it’s possible to have many nations in a country.
LikeLike
It’s a different meaning of the word nation that is being used here. You are talking of ethnic groups, it seems, but here a nation = a country.
LikeLike
So there’s no native nations?
LikeLike
I like to use the term “indigenous peoples.” The Canadian term “First Nations” sounds weird to me.
LikeLike
In many places (especially Europe) “nation” mostly means an ethnic group, especially one with a unique language and the trappings of high culture (esp literature).
IME in te US it basically means country, which is my baseline defintion. For me the “American nation” is a term that makes perfect sense if it refers to the people of the country, especially those with self-awareness as citizens.
LikeLike
Okay, Indigenous nations.
LikeLike
Nations only started to appear in the XVIIIth century. It makes no sense to use this word to describe the people who never had a nation (=country) of the type created in the XVIIIth century of their own.
LikeLike
In fact, in French, I prefer the term “peuple” because I’m not a nationalist. In English, we have the term “people” but “people” is more general than “peuple” in French.
The Canada government recognizes Québec as a nation.
LikeLike
Humanist principles?
Everyone has right to life and pursuit of happiness.
Everyone should be given maximal freedom, the only thing limiting one’s freedom should be other people’s freedoms.
Everyone is equal in the eyes of the (secular) law, regardless of race, ethnicity, other origins, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc..
Everyone should be provided with equal starting opportunities (not results).
LikeLike
“Everyone should be provided with equal starting opportunities (not results).”
– Wait. . . are you sure? This sounds like a Communist ideal nobody has achieved yet.
LikeLike
“Everyone should be provided with equal starting opportunities (not results).”
The only way to achieve that is (for example) compulsory standardized education which violates other universal values you claim.
Let’s take ten kids who reach school age.
5 start in state run public schools
2 are home-schooled by evangelical parents without very good teaching skills
1 is sent to a madrassa where he learns to recite the Koran and not much else
1 is kept from school to help the family business
1 is sent to a state-of-the-art private school
Five years later you’ve already got massive inequality…..
LikeLike
“1 is sent to a madrassa where he learns to recite the Koran and not much else
1 is kept from school to help the family business”
– These two options are illegal in the developed countries, aren’t they?
“2 are home-schooled by evangelical parents without very good teaching skills”
– And this should definitely be illegal.
LikeLike
I like multiculturalism. I fear that the only possible alternative is constant attempts by people of each culture to exterminate members of all different cultures. I do not want this to happen.
LikeLike
However, I have European friends who think that this would be better than multiculturalism.
LikeLike
I believe there are alternatives. A more careful and reasonable approach to immigration is an alternative. There needs to be an understanding that, even under the best circumstances, immigration is a deeply traumatic experience. Whether a particular immigrant will be able to adapt to the new country should be the #1 consideration. How distant are the cultures that are being brought into contact? How likely are they to compenetrate? How contradictory are their customs and traditions? For now, nobody is asking these questions because of badly understood political correctness.
That is what multiculturalism is. It’s the belief that bringing a bunch of people from vastly different civilizations will invariably produce great results. That idea, however, is completely mistaken. Cultural differences exist and they are more profound in some cases than in others.
LikeLike
AFAICT adult immigrants never assimilated that well, the trauma of transplantation (even when it was desired) and the mental habits of growing up in a certain kind of culture meant that assimilation was always partial and skin deep. When assimilation happened it was with the children born in the new country. This was not without it’s own problems but by and large it worked pretty well.
A big problem with immigration to Europe (esp by middle eastern cultures) is that the parents go out of their way to transfer their culture shock trauma regarding the local cultures to their children and actively (and successfully thanks to pc multicultural bullies) try to prevent assimilation. Then they complain that they’re not accepted. Well, duh.
I’m thinking that one possible direction forward is to re-weigh the genetic versus linguistic and cultural aspects of identity. Most European countries are thoroughly mixed genetically anyway.
France (and other European countries) did this for centuries. Sarkozy (sleazeball may he be) might have Hungarian, Greek and Jewish family roots but he’s as French as they come.
LikeLike
“A big problem with immigration to Europe (esp by middle eastern cultures) is that the parents go out of their way to transfer their culture shock trauma regarding the local cultures to their children and actively (and successfully thanks to pc multicultural bullies) try to prevent assimilation. Then they complain that they’re not accepted. Well, duh.”
– Yes! This is precisely what I’m talking about. We can sit here pretending like cultural differences don’t matter and don’t cause extreme frustration and resentment, but that is not true. Let’s accept reality already.
“I’m thinking that one possible direction forward is to re-weigh the genetic versus linguistic and cultural aspects of identity.”
– How would this work in practical terms?
LikeLike
“- How would this work in practical terms?”
I’m not that sure (yet). But recently I came into contact with a German student with a Hispanic name (who would look more at home in Columbia or Venezuela than Spain).
He was born in Germany, has German citizenship German is his first language, he dresses like a German, has German body language. To me he’s German but he was upset when I referred to him as German (he insisted he was most certainly not German). Then I made things worse by suggesting he was “culturally German” without first defining what I meant by that.
I’m trying to figure out how to ask out why he rejects German identity without making things worse (maybe it’s a German thing…..)
LikeLike
“These two options are illegal in the developed countries, aren’t they?”
I would hope so, but I don’t think they could be outlawed Valter07’s Humanistan.
“2 are home-schooled by evangelical parents without very good teaching skills”
Basically, yeah.
LikeLike
With this post, I understand that your definition of “multiculturalism” is not “Canadian multiculturalism”. In fact, Canada multiculturalism is worse.
LikeLike
Interesting discussion, but lots of undefined terms being thrown around, including, of course, “multiculturalism” itself.
When South Africa turned its back on apartheid and opted for democracy, people spoke of “many cultures, one nation”. That’s “multiculturalism” as I understand it. And I really don’t understand why Clarissa thinks it is a “stupid” idea. The proponents of apartheid thought it was a stupid idea, of course, and that led to the ethnic cleansing of some 3-4 million people. And I think THAT was a stupid idea. Driving people out of their homes so that you can make neat borders between ethnic groups that they don’t cross to fit with some bureaucrat’s map — that’s stupid.
And what are “medieval values”?
One thing that did not seem to rate very high in medieval values was nationalism.
Nation states and nationalism really only appeared with the Peace of Westphalia, as modern values, as opposed to medieval ones.
I’ve just been on a holiday trip to Namibia and Botswana, and blogged about it. Namibia is as multicultural as South Africa, but I thought Botswana came pretty close to being a nation state, in African terms. Boy, was I wrong. Botswana is as multicultural as the rest of us.
And even Ukraine I’m not so sure about, though not having ever been there, I must bow to Clarissa’s superior knowledge on this point, but from what I’ve heard west Ukraine has more Lithuanian and Polish influence, while east Ukraine has more Russian influence, and the former tends to be Roman Catholic (of the Uniate variety) while the latter tends to be Orthodox, so I’m not sure that it’s entirely monocultural either.
LikeLike
In the modern (esp West) European model, “multiculturalism” is pseudo-voluntary apartheid with liberals rather than conservatives enforcing the separation.
LikeLike
“In the modern (esp West) European model, “multiculturalism” is pseudo-voluntary apartheid with liberals rather than conservatives enforcing the separation.”
– Yes, this is what I’m talking about. This is a European reality (Russia has joined now, so I can’t say it’s solely Western European) and I have confused people by not mentioning this from the start.
LikeLike
The kind of multiculturalism I find stupid is solely the Western European kind where people end up living segregated into ethnic ghettos they neither want nor can’t leave. As a result, xenophobia grows, neo-Nazi parties gain traction, and all kinds of animosities are stoked.
LikeLike
So it seems that “multiculturalism” is well on the way to becoming its own antonym.
LikeLike
\\ Whether a particular immigrant will be able to adapt to the new country should be the #1 consideration. How distant are the cultures that are being brought into contact? How likely are they to compenetrate? How contradictory are their customs and traditions? For now, nobody is asking these questions because of badly understood political correctness.
Somebody looked at the average net household wealth of various ethnic groups in Britain to judge whether future immigrants are likely to adapt:
In Britain, an ethnic group’s social mobility depends on its own culture, not government largesse.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0129td.html
LikeLike
The really disturbing issue is why the secular people do so badly compared with religious people. Something must be seriously wrong if a secular majority fares so poorly.
LikeLike
The problem with this article is that if the author looked at the Russian – speakers in London (who are a very large and growing community), he would discover that they easily beat every other group by far. And that’s not because they have values that help them make money. It’s because they are criminals.
LikeLike
Besides, the division by religion is completely bizarre when the article itself states that it’s a lot more about the specific country one is from.
Also, was Abramovich counted among Jews?
LikeLike
\\ The really disturbing issue is why the secular people do so badly compared with religious people.
I don’t think all those Jews, Muslims, Sikh and Hindu are practicing their religions in reality. If somebody from a different ethnic group immigrates, telling “I am Jewish / Muslim / etc.” may mean natonality / place of origin / some kind of not mainstream identity, rather than following religious rituals. Even if one is specifically asked about religion in a survey. For instance, I am sure that former Israeli Jews would define themselves as Jewish for this survey, including atheists among them.
Who defined himself as “None” as opposed to “Christian” is an interesting question.
LikeLike
I have no doubt that the “Jews” in the group have such a high “income” because the Russian bandits were counted amongst them. So the survey is hugely lopsided.
LikeLike
\\ I have no doubt that the “Jews” in the group have such a high “income” because the Russian bandits were counted amongst them.
I think you are so emotionally plugged into those Russian bandits that you see them everywhere, turning all rich Jews into them. Nobody thinks about them, except people from FSU since they are visible there for several reasons, as Putin’s friends would want them to be.
I googled and found the numbers below. Even if they aren’t 100% correct, all those Jews can’t be “Russian bandits.” And it’s not like other ethnic groups don’t have numerous bandits of their own.
// Here’s my count of Forbes Israel‘s list, with Jewish billionaires as a fraction of the country’s total number of billionaires:
US 105/442 = 24%
Israel 16/16 = 100%
Russia 12/99 = 12%
Canada 6/29 = 21%
Brazil 6/45 = 13%
UK 5/37 = 14%
Ukraine 3/10 = 30%
Monaco 3/3 = 100%
Australia 3/22 = 14%
Spain 2/20 = 10%
France 2/24 = 8%
Germany 1/58 = 2%
Hong Kong 1/39 = 3% //
http://takimag.com/article/jewish_wealth_by_the_numbers_steve_sailer/print#axzz3Hr3JI0HW
LikeLike
“I think you are so emotionally plugged into those Russian bandits that you see them everywhere, turning all rich Jews into them.”
– OK, I have no idea what this outburst is about but it is no secret that oligarchs from Russia all have British passports and have bought palaces in London.
“Even if they aren’t 100% correct, all those Jews can’t be “Russian bandits.””
– And when did I say they were? Abramovich and Co’s fortunes are so enormous that subdivided across a statistically small group of Jewish residents of the UK, they dramatically increase the median income of these Jewish residents. The point I’m making is not that “all Jews in the UK are rich.” The point I’m making is the exact opposite.
LikeLike
\\ oligarchs from Russia all have British passports […] Abramovich and Co’s fortunes are so enormous that subdivided across a statistically small group of Jewish residents of the UK, they dramatically increase the median income of these Jewish residents
I understood your point about UK. What I wanted to say was that since f.e. in Australia, Spain and France % of rich Jews is higher than their % in the total population, I tend to think Jews are doing fine. Including in UK, even if we take out several rich Russian Jews, I suppose the rest wouldn’t fall behind Christians ($361,000).
LikeLike
If this were about any other country on the planet but the UK, I would not have mentioned the Russian bandits. But there can be no discussion of the finances in the UK without them.
I’m sure Jews in the UK are doing just fine. But twice better than everybody else? Seriously?
These discussions lead nowhere but into the area of dangerous and outdated stereotypes. Most people in developed countries nowadays practice no religion. It makes no sense to subdivide them according to these religious categories.
LikeLike
Why have they all gone to UK and not, say, France or Germany?
\\ These discussions lead nowhere but into the area of dangerous and outdated stereotypes. Most people in developed countries nowadays practice no religion. It makes no sense to subdivide them according to these religious categories.
I think looking at how immigrants from different ethnic groups (including the second generation of their children, if they have stayed in a country this long) adapted to the new country is essential for adapting smart immigration policies.
That’s why I welcomed the linked article as a step in the right direction. He used “ethnic groups” not “religions” in the article’s subtitle for a reason. That’s what he wants to look at and tried to do so via results of this survey. Of course, one may wonder how good the survey was (though I think Muslims succeeding the least reflects reality). When I say “Muslims”, I mean “people from Africa and/or Middle East, who define/d themselves as Muslim before/after immigration.”
LikeLike
“Ethnic groups” are a fiction. Why not talk about the country of origin instead?
“Why have they all gone to UK and not, say, France or Germany?”
– Because UK sells citizenship to rich crooks and other countries don’t do it. But don’t ask me why UK has been so eager to become a garbage collector for these animals. I have no idea.
LikeLike
\\ Most people in developed countries nowadays practice no religion.
I got the impression that most immigrants from Africa / Muslim countries do practice Islam. At least, they say so.
LikeLike
Immigrants don’t make a majority in developed countries.
LikeLike
And we have just been talking about it – did Putin want this report?
Close to one quarter of the 200 richest people in Russia are Jewish, according to a report by Russian banking website lanta.ru, which gives the 48 Jews on the list a combined net worth of $132.9 billion.
The report also analyzed the nationality of each of the 200 billionaires, finding that just 89 – less than half – were ethnic Russians, even though they make up 81% percent of the population in Russia.
[…]
The publication of the list erupted outrage in Russia and received criticism from news editors and human rights organizations who claimed that this is the first time that the list of the wealthiest Russians is composed of a majority of non-native citizens and points to the fact that most of the country’s wealth is in the hands of “foreigners”.
Journalist Nikolai Svanidze, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia, a consultant for the office of President Vladimir Putin, said in response that the list is a “Nazi report” and that the ethnicities of the wealthiest members of Russian society should not be published, as it is “subject to cause issues.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4587086,00.html
LikeLike