Cultural relativism and multiculturalism

Résumé du document

Nowadays, we observe a developing phenomenon of identity-assertion and an increasing number of requests for recognition of cultural specificities. Globalization and massive immigration create a melting pot. There are now 175 million international migrants (twice more than in 1965), and it is mostly a matter of local migration. Therefore, the rupture with the country of origin is less important and cultural identities remain strong. In countries of immigration, the issue of cultural difference is propelled into the public arena, with questions such as the wearing of the Islamic veil, female circumcision and arranged marriages. The assertions of identity and the protection of cultural specificities are now an important factor in formulating collective requests. Multiculturalism can be an answer to these demands. We can define it as an historical set of political programs, intellectual discussions and practical experiences which aim at guaranteeing the recognition of cultural specificities.

Extraits

[...] Anthropologists show that cannibalism is not a particular taste for human flesh, but a strictly codified ritual practice which seeks to appropriate the deceased's qualities. For a relativist, cannibalism is not a problem. If men are equal, their vision of the world should be treated in the same way. However, for an Age of Enlightenment's philosopher for instance, it is a problem because cannibalism calls into question the dignity of mankind. When we judge some cultural practices we always use our own conception of right and good. [...]

[...] Thus, cultural relativism would lead to the destruction of the subject's identity but also of the good in general under the pretext of teaching students not to be ethnocentric. The requirement of recognition can give birth to two different policies of integration: assimilation and multiculturalism. The first approach to political management of cultural diversity was that of assimilation. In general, the dynamics of cultural convergence prevail at the expense of diversity. For instance, the French model of integration is based on assimilation. We must limit which prevents from becoming French by adhering to new values through a political and ideological work. [...]

[...] At the time of multinational empires, by contrast, management of cultural diversity was organized collectively. This is not the difference that was recognized as such, but a limited number of communities that formed the empire de facto. According to the French authors Renault and Mesure, human societies have experienced three regimes of otherness: the ancient regime where the other was less than oneself, the relationship was marked by condescension (indigenous people in colonial societies), the modern regime in which equality was first interpreted in terms of similarity (citizens were equal in their common humanity, "beyond" the differences), and lastly the contemporary regime, where people want to be recognized as equals rather than "beyond" but in their differences, equality is now understood in terms of equivalence between cultures. [...]

[...] The assertions of identity and the protection of cultural specificities are now an important factor in formulating collective requests. Multiculturalism can be an answer to these demands. We can define it as an historical set of political programs, intellectual discussions and practical experiences which aim at guaranteeing the recognition of cultural specificities. The idea was born in the early 1970s in Australia and Canada and has spread to the rest of the democratic world afterwards. Nevertheless, multiculturalism is still a subject of debate. [...]

[...] If the intentions of multiculturalism are generous (recognition of individuals and communities), there is a risk of drift legitimizing practices contrary to the principles of liberal democracies. That is the whole problem of cultural relativism. Furthermore, we can wonder if multiculturalist policies' power of innovation is not overestimated. Where they have been introduced they did not revolutionize the order of society. They rather consist of micro-strategies to supplement the functioning of national institutions, most of the time in a symbolic way, avoiding any calling into question. [...]