“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”
– Thomas Sowell, economist
The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names …
The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names. Many a bad idea has been made to sound better, by simply throwing “-ism” onto the end of a good buzzword. Although I find most postmodern writing to be intolerably bad, I should concede that by the simple addition of an “-ism,” some of their ideas can be made to sound deep and intellectual. The words with several syllables seem to conceal a certain kind of emptiness in their ideas, with the quality of the words seldom matching their intimidating quantity. But the influence of these ideas is far too prevalent for them to just be dismissed out of hand. It has been said that nutty ideas in academia will soon find their way into the broader society, about five years after their appearance in the ivory tower. Thus, the various offshoots of postmodernism have gained a foothold in everyday life far beyond their academic origins. I plan to deal with postmodernism proper (however one defines it) in another post. Thus, I will not attempt to deal with the original postmodern ideas in this post. Rather, I will here be undertaking to cover certain offshoots of postmodernism, such as multiculturalism and postcolonialism. It seems correct to identify these as offshoots of postmodernism. I will also talk somewhat here about moral relativism and cultural relativism, and how they fit into this broader postmodern picture.
Africans serving in the armies of European colonial powers – German East Africa, circa 1906
Problems with postcolonialism (a.k.a. post-colonial theory), an offshoot of postmodernism
One of the offshoots of postmodernism is postcolonialism, sometimes called post-colonial theory. Wikipedia starts by defining this phrase as “the critical academic study of the cultural, political and economic consequences of colonialism and imperialism, focusing on the impact of human control and exploitation of colonized people and their lands.” (Source: Their page on “Postcolonialism”) They clarify further that “The field started to emerge in the 1960s, as scholars from previously colonized countries began publishing on the lingering effects of colonialism, developing a critical theory analysis of the history, culture, literature, and discourse of (usually European) imperial power … Postcolonial, as in the postcolonial condition, is to be understood, as Mahmood Mamdani puts it, as a reversal of colonialism but not as superseding it.” (Source: Same as above) So what does all of this mean? Basically, the picture painted by postcolonialism is that imperialism and colonialism were both uniformly bad, with few (if any) positive effects. Many of them argue that conquered lands should simply be “given back” to indigenous peoples. For example, they argue that the United States should simply be “given back” to the Native Americans, and that any country existing on stolen land is just “fundamentally corrupt.” White liberals say this while living in houses and apartments in the United States, which they refuse to hand over to any Native American family. If they were of a mind to do so, it seems that they would probably have done so already, after all. But, despite this refusal to practice what they preach, these ideas seem to have gained a wide audience among the young. That is, many young folks believe that America (and other former colonies) are “fundamentally corrupt.” This country can’t be redeemed, they say, until we “give the land back” to the Native Americans. Or maybe back to Mexico, depending on the mood – Spanish Conquistadors can apparently be celebrated, even if British and French conquerors must be condemned – a double standard that is somewhat hard to follow.
Hernán Cortés, Spanish Conquistador
Problems with multiculturalism, another offshoot of postmodernism
But another contemporary offshoot of postmodernism is multiculturalism. Wikipedia starts by defining this word simply as “the existence of multiple cultures.” In this context, one might even translate this word as “diversity.” But they also clarify that, in the context of sociology, multiculturalism is “the end-state of either a natural or artificial process (for example: legally controlled immigration) and occurs on either a large national scale or on a smaller scale within a nation's communities.” (Source: Their page on “Multiculturalism”) They also clarify that, in the context of political science, multiculturalism can be defined as “a state's capacity to effectively and efficiently deal with cultural plurality within its sovereign borders.” (Source: Same as above) It was once fashionable for multiculturalists to use the metaphor of a “melting pot.” For example, this metaphor was once taught to me by one of my elementary school teachers in California, who seemed to be something of a liberal. But this metaphor has since fallen out of fashion among multiculturalists. They criticize it for saying that immigrants should be required to “assimilate” to the surrounding culture. This is why they sometimes suggest a “salad bowl” or “kaleidoscope” metaphor as an alternative to the “melting pot” one, which seems to have come from their own forbears. But they also say that the surrounding culture should be required to “assimilate” to the immigrants. Apparently, this assimilation is all right, if everyone else has to do it – it’s just the immigrants who should be spared from this process. I have some trouble following this logic.
Immigrants to the USA take oath of allegiance at a naturalization ceremony – Arizona, 2010
Contradictions between multicultural and postcolonial arguments
But their position may have been best summed up by the economist Thomas Sowell. As quoted above, he said that “What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.” No one has ever said it better. Multiculturalism often implies a support for increased immigration, including illegal immigration. Apparently, it’s “racist” to deny illegal immigrants access to the borders of this country. But many multiculturalists are also postcolonialists, who say that it’s also “racist” to live on lands that were stolen from the indigenous peoples. Apparently, we’re also supposed to “give the land back” to Native Americans (or perhaps Mexico), and then give it to immigrants from non-native cultures – such as immigrants from Asia. I’m not exactly sure how we’re supposed to do both of these things, but so goes the party line. To the extent that we pursue either of these policies, we seem to be undermining the other. And, according to these postmodern offshoots, undermining either of these goals would be “racist,” making them “racist” by their own definition.
Chief Sitting Bull, 1883
Problems with moral relativism, and the recent alternative of cultural relativism
Postmodernism is also associated with a belief in moral relativism. That is, they often believe that all morality is in the eye of the beholder, and that individuals should be able to decide for themselves about what is right or wrong. This is particularly held to be true in sexual contexts. But, if a sex offender were to decide for himself that he finds rape “acceptable,” they would strongly object to this (as they should) – showing that they seldom believe this argument themselves. Thus, some have instead proposed a “cultural relativism,” where morality is instead relative to the entire culture. This idea comes out of anthropology – and, specifically, out of cultural anthropology. That is, the postmodernist side tends to support moral relativism, while the anthropological side tends to support cultural relativism as a more fashionable alternative. As Wikipedia puts it, cultural relativism is “the view that concepts and moral values must be understood in their own cultural context and not judged according to the standards of a different culture.[footnotes] It asserts the equal validity of all points of view and the relative nature of truth, which is determined by an individual or their culture.” (Source: Their page on “Cultural relativism”)
Human sacrifice among the Aztecs, as shown in the Codex Magliabechiano
Double standards in cultural relativist arguments, even in their most sympathetic form
This has led some relativist scholars to defend the Aztec practice of human sacrifice (as in this documentary by the History Channel), on the grounds that it was once considered “acceptable” in their culture. I’m actually all right with using cultural context (to some degree, at least) as an extenuating circumstance for certain practices. The trouble is that, once again, these beliefs seem to be accompanied by double standards. That is, White Europeans who practiced slavery, or engaged in imperialism, have to be “condemned” for it – even if their culture supported these practices. Specifically, the Founding Fathers of the United States are often singled out, and judged by modern standards for these now-unpopular practices. To the extent that anthropologists try to have it both ways, cultural relativists seem to be a bit hypocritical, as some of them have recognized. Thus, some of them have tried to soften this argument, by saying that cultural factors are “just one piece of the puzzle.” These factors should be taken into account, says this group, but not necessarily considered to be the final word on this subject. This is why some of them feel comfortable, among other things, condemning the caste system of India. This is a more reasonable position, but is once again contradicted by various double standards. Few of them would mitigate the guilt of those in Nazi Germany who committed genocide, even when the cultural factor of its Antisemitic history is taken into account. Rather, they say that the Holocaust is just objectively wrong (which it was), and cannot be defended (which it can’t). But the mass murders of Maoist China can apparently be defended, on the grounds that they were excused by Mao’s own culture (led by Mao himself). Thus, one again gets a little dizzy from the shifting double standards.
People in the Indian subcontinent classified by castes, 1862
Conclusion: These schools of thought are as confused as postmodernism proper
It’s hard to keep track of all of these contradictions, since they can sometimes change depending on the postmodern mood. But that’s par for the course with postmodernists, and with their various offshoots – such as the ones discussed in this post. Given that many postmodernists have actually rejected logic (even as a general method), these contradictions aren’t all that surprising – nor is the fact that they would become fashionable in the ivory tower, where bad ideas seem usually to find their first acceptance. More concerning is how these ideas have since become fashionable in the broader society – particularly among the young and impressionable generation. Part of this is due to the postmodern infiltration of the media, which has been preaching many of these postmodern ideas for decades. I should acknowledge that my earlier use of the word “fads” may, in some sense, be inaccurate here – because these ideas will probably be around for some time. But they still seem to meet the criterion for ideas that are held more because they are fashionable, than because of their true merits. In this sense, they seem surely to be fads – and somewhat silly ones at that. These ideas seem to have inherited some of the confusion of their postmodern origins, as well as its appearance of intellectual “sophistication.” As mentioned earlier, many bad ideas can be made to sound good, if one simply tacks an “-ism” onto the end of a good buzzword. Thus, these ideas will probably remain influential for years to come, despite ultimately being somewhat hollow.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment