Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity And Political Theory.

by Bhikhu Parekh (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000)

In Rethinking Multiculturalism Bhikhu Parekh joins the growing band of political theorists seeking to contest Rawls's claim that justice is the "first virtue of social institutions," and with it liberalism's wider appeal. In the culturally diverse societies most of us now inhabit, he argues, justice must take its place alongside other values in informing political debate, and liberalism must be supplemented by insights from competing traditions. Multicultural societies, he says, need to be "dialogically constituted" so that all voices can be heard and inevitable differences worked out in a spirit of discussion, negotiation and compromise.

Parekh's analysis takes the form of three overlapping debates with political theorists, historians and ordinary members of civil society. Theorists may be disappointed that among contemporary writers he is chiefly concerned to pick arguments with liberals, and has comparatively little to say about how multiculturalism relates to communitarianism. Historians will endorse an analysis of the modern state that shows it to be premised on, and driven to foster, political and cultural homogeneity, and thus now faced with major difficulties in societies characterized by "deep diversity." Most interest will probably focus on a series of practical problems for which, in place of firm solutions, "general principles" intended to serve as "navigational devices" to multiculturalist politics are offered.

Parekh acknowledges that long-established cultures and practices--"society's operative public values"--provide the necessary context for political debate, but nevertheless insists that other current practices must be given a fair hearing in a permanent process of intercultural dialogue and exchange. For that to happen innovative policies may be required. In essence, the task is to strip at least some existing cultural baggage from contemporary politics and infuse institutions and practices with multiculturalist understandings, if necessary through programmes of affirmative action and cultural empowerment. Constitutions should deal only with the basic structure of civil authority, its area of jurisdiction and mode of exercise. Systems of justice should be culturally sensitive and may need to create rights for individuals to acquire necessary social capacities and skills. The common culture should be developed through interactions between its component parts and, if necessary, state action to empower marginalized cultures. The education system should be made fully multicultural by promoting intercultural dialogue. National identity should be located in and focused on the political structure of a community, not the shared personal characteristics of individual members, as a means of enabling multiple identities to flourish.

An ideal world may well consist of multicultural societies engaged in the vibrant intercultural dialogue described by Parekh: his vision is in many ways alluring. But what about the non-ideal world in which we live? Here he has a lot to say to groups of people already committed in some significant sense to multiculturalist ideals. Australians, Canadians and some others are likely to find his analysis both appealing and helpful as they construct increasingly multiculturalist societies. Crucially, they already possess many of the qualities on which Parekh relies in outlining his vision: goodwill, mutual sympathy, openness to dialogue, broad commitment to multiculturalist values, and comparative affluence. But how useful might this book be for people living in less promising parts of the world, who not only possess few or none of the qualities just listed, but simply have no desire to libe with individuals from other cultures? What does Parekh have to say to them? They too are advised to engage in intercultural dialogue, and as a means of making it as fair as possible are urged to empower marginalized groups by opening access to public space and funding outreach programmes. If their struggle for recognition is persistently rebuffed, such groups may reasonably resort to violence. However, states should succumb to disintegration rather than engage in cultural repression.

At the extreme, by no means beyond the bounds of possibility in the contemporary world, the practical implications of this analysis are intercommunal violence and fragmentation of states, some of which are currently quite ordered and settled. In societies capable of avoiding extreme situations, the implications are quite extensive state promotion and funding of marginalized cultures. In part, Parekh urges a campaign of rectification, whereby cultural insensitivities, such as potentially divisive and offensive laws and symbols, are removed. In part, he seeks more constructive measures, whereby variations in cultural codes, new modes of public discourse and so on are allowed. The key question is how far societies populated not by the well-meaning and deliberative souls of the Parekhian universe, but by rather more difficult characters, might reasonably be expected to advance down this path. Here it seems probable that costly programmes of affirmative action and cultural empowerment will find limited support, and may be actively divisive.

Thinking through where this leaves us, it seems that the liberal tradition is not such a bad starting point after all. Parekh is surely right to criticize Rawls (and Habermas) for promoting highly rationalist, uniform and Euro/American-centric deliberative politics. Other traditions have valuable things to say about how we should actually "do" politics. But some form of neutral state committed to a system of culturally-sensitive procedural justice still looks like the best hope for deeply divided societies. In such a state the greatest grievances will be held by those who feel existing socio-cultural biases are not being tackled. But at least no one will be able to claim that politics and the state itself are stacked against them, which should reduce the potential for tension and enhance the possibility of peaceful co-existence, or even integration, in the long term. Clearly some peoples will want to go beyond this, and if they agree collectively to do so there is no good reason why anyone should stop them. But for an approach with potentially universal application we may be better advised to begin in traditions other than Parekh's multiculturalism.

Ian Holliday, Dept. of Public and Social Adm., City University of Hong Kong