The last posting began a
review of the ideas of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. regarding the differences
between critical multiculturalists and assimilationists.[1] That posting left the reader with Schlesinger’s
opinion that critical multiculturalists can’t divorce themselves from the contributions
of Western culture. That that tradition
provides the sentiments and reasoned rationales upon which these advocates base
their calls for liberty and equality.
This posting delves into what the substance of that
tradition is. The liberal historian does
not deny the crimes of that tradition, but that those crimes have spurred their
“antidotes.” Among those counter beliefs
include rationales to end slavery, to upgrade the status of women, to do away
with legalized torture, to wage the fight against racism, to uphold (if not
invent) the practice of free inquiry and expression, and to lay the foundation
and practice of individual liberty and the enumeration of human rights.
The historical record shows that these “democratic”
attributes got their starts in Europe and included the belief in the rule of
law and that cultures should not face extinction by dominant ways of life. Take one of these, freedom of inquiry; it has
allowed a rich tradition of artistic expression. Schlesinger, to make this point, cites the
case of Salman Rushdie.
That
novelist portrayed a story offensive to the followers of a Middle East religious
tradition. Well, some of the followers
issued death threats against the writer because their tradition did not share
the ideals of tolerance that would allow such writings. Yet, in the West, many could not even
understand this reaction; it was so non-Western.
Summarizing, Schlesinger writes, “Individualism itself is
looked on with abhorrence and dread by collectivist cultures in which loyalty
to the group overrides personal goals – cultures that, social scientists say,
comprise about 70 percent of the world’s population.”[2] A key word in this quote is
“collectivist.”
That
word represents the basic difference – and here this blogger is interjecting –
between critical theory thought and federation theory thought. Central to critical thought is the group, the
collective; central to federation theory thought is the compact-ing of consensual
individuals. Under this latter view the
result is not a collective, but a community that allows for congregations to
meet common challenges while protecting the integrity of each member.
The
historian charges: “White guilt can be pushed
too far.” And this “pushing” has led to
various counterproductive aims. Ethnic
ideologues seem to be advocating a central policy choice: bilingual curricula in public schools. This would be punctuated with choices to
segregate minority children from American society.
It
would also promote the message that these students do not take part in American
democratic tradition and adopt the language and thought of them being victims with
a reliance on alibis. This, in effect,
leads to a generation turning away from opportunities to attain the gains by the
strenuous work of prior civil right workers and, yes, white guilt.
Here,
one can find a union between the writings of Gunnar Myrdal[3] and federation theory. That being that a stand against a single society
will ultimately fail and will not deliver its promise of a better life. And among the rank and file of minority citizens,
the dream still exists: to shed
ethnicity and land up in the suburbs in as short a time as possible.
Rank
and file does not include all: “Others
may enjoy their ethnic neighborhoods but see no conflict between foreign
descent and American loyalty. Unlike the
multiculturalists, they celebrate not only what is distinctive in their own
backgrounds but what they hold in common with the rest of the population.”[4]
As
mentioned in the last posting, this blogger agrees a lot with Schlesinger ideas
and sentiments, but not all of it. But
at a time when there seems to be a collapsing of diverse opinions in the great
polarization of the national political arena, and a newer form of incubation
seems to be in effect, one should not lose cognizance of what is brewing below
the surface.
One
can sort of see it in Portland where some protesters are expressing moderate
objections to racism and some are more virulent and extreme in what they want
to happen. The factions are united
because the current political realities demand it, but this does not mean they have
disappeared. The next posting will continue
this blog’s treatment of Schlesinger’s argument.
[1] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of
America: Reflections on a Multicultural
Society (New York, NY: W. W. Norton
and Company, 1992).
[2] Ibid., 127.
[3]
Gunnar Myrdal,
An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York,
NY: Harper and Brothers, 1944).
[4] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of
America, 132.
No comments:
Post a Comment