|
September 28, 2005
In an article published several years ago Stuart Hall asked a good question:
What are the chances that we can construct in our cities shared, diverse, just, and egalitarian forms of common life, guaranteeing the full rights of democratic citizenship and participation to all on the basis of equality, whilst respecting the differences which inevitably come about when peoples of different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and traditions are obliged to live together in the same shared space?
It is very relevant in the light of this. Some commentary on these counter terrorism measures by George Williams can be found here.
Will the 'war on terror' that started after 9/11 undermine the promise of a multicutural Australia in cities such as Melbourne and Sydney? Will that promise give way to a process that is sub-dividing shared urban space into discrete, differentiated warring enclaves? Will that promise by a "country of immigrants" fade with the ascendancy of a new assimilationism?
The regime of assimilation that disciplined newcomers and immigrants to Australia to assimiliate to the norms and conventions of Anglo-Australian society and to blend in with those already there --- has usually been a project of the conservative right. An Anglophone Australia opposed the cosmopoiltian post-nationalist left by talking in terms of the "ideology of multiculturalism", ethnic ghettos and violence. 'Australianness' is defined narrowly to ensure that many of Australia's Muslim communities find themselves defined as the "aliens within".
The cosmopolitan left once held that the future for humanity lies in a global system organised along universal principles, that were imposed through the international rule of law. On this Kantian account the particular cultures, and the political units and institutions created in their name by nation-states are 'only a means to valuable human goods, and never an end in themselves. The particular narratives and myths embodied in the practices of nation states , if allowed to go unchecked, get in the way of realising universal values to do with respecting the freedom and equality of others----in other words, of respecting other's humanity.'
Parts of the left--eg., the ALP--- now favour a strong national identity in response to imigrations flows, Tampa, and the Bali bombings. A stronger national identity is being achieved through a repackaging of older versions of assimilationism, and calling it 'integrationist'. This discourse states that immigrants, especially strangers such as Muslim immigrants, have a duty to adapt to the Australian way of life. Cultural similarity provides for national cohesion, diversity inevitably weakens cohesion.
What this discourse ignores iis that 'racism' is as embedded a part of Australian culture as 'tolerance' and 'consensus.'
|
I like the Kantian idea.
The analogy it reminds me of is language. Instead of getting everyone to learn to speak English (monoculture), or getting everyone to learn to speak English and Greek (multiculture), we dump English and Greek altogether and get everyone to speak Esparento (a scientific universal better language).
Yeah? Good analogy?