Multiculturalism? Hmm . . .
The JVP and the UNP are making angry rumblings and, accusations of LTTE-Mahinda pacts and US-Gotabaya Pacts are doing the rounds. Amidst the turmoil the APRC is making feeble attempts to ‘put out something’ by the 15th of March. Most observers of the process are cynical; the APRC is seen as an eye-wash with no real participation by the political parties and no real ability to produce even ‘some good ideas’ for a political solution.
One wonders if there is any discussion about what these ‘political solutions’ mean and how they are going to be translated into do-able practical components by the Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims with ethnicity deeply etched into their minds. At a time when pluralism and multiculturalism seem to be bandied around it’s a good idea to delve deeper into these words and uncover the many layers. So what is multiculturalism? What does it mean for a person living in Sri Lanka? In an article titled “The Uses and Abuses of Multiculturalism†Amartya Sen discusses the concept of Multiculturalism and how it is assessed (The New Republic/ Issue date: 02.27.06). According to Sen,
One of the central issues concerns is how human beings are seen. Should they be categorized in terms of inherited traditions, particularly the inherited religion, of the community in which they happen to have been born, taking that unchosen identity to have automatic priority over other affiliations involving politics, profession, class, gender, language, literature, social involvements, and many other connections? Or should they be understood as persons with many affiliations and associations, whose relative priorities they must themselves choose (taking the responsibility that comes with reasoned choice)? Also, should we assess the fairness of multiculturalism primarily by the extent to which people from different cultural backgrounds are “left alone,” or by the extent to which their ability to make reasoned choices is positively supported by the social opportunities of education and participation in civil society? There is no way of escaping these rather foundational questions if multiculturalism is to be fairly assessed.
Sri Lankans have a propensity to look at the inherited traditions and people are seen firstly in their ethnic affiliations and secondly the religious. These become hard-core criteria and affect all other aspects from the school into which children will be accepted, the education they receive and even the profession. These criteria are dinned into the minds of children and even anecdotes are taught to children which typify people from other ethnic groups. These two affiliations take precedence over all other connectors, infact the other connectors are mostly ignored. In Sri Lanka ‘reasoned choice’ is a backward murmur.
In this context is it possible for any political solution to be pragmatically implemented in Sri Lanka? Is multiculturalism merely the ability to acknowledge the existence of diverse cultural groups? Should multiculturalism be narrowed down to mean people or groups with different cultures? Should it not be expanded to include the concept that an individual can and should have different ‘cultures’, different identities and not a perspective that is only coloured by an inherited tradition that belongs to a group?
Sri Lanka should encourage her younglings to look at the different identities that they have, to foster these so that the chasm among the ethnic identities could be minimized in the future by the bridges of gender, language, literature, social movements, political affiliations and a million other new more useful connectors.
Editors note: Link to Sen’s original article added.
17 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Good, thoughtful piece. My own view is that respect for cultural and other inherited identity-based diversity (multiculturalism) has always to be balanced by the strong encouragement of a the common political identity through rights-based citizenship.
Arrack. cricket and baila are three other useful connectors in the Sri Lankan context.
The New Republic website requires registration to access full text articles. Some logins that may work, courtesy of BugMeNot.com are available here – http://www.bugmenot.com/view/www.tnr.com
One of the first contributions to Groundviews in December 2006, from Deane, was also on the issue of multiculturalism in a Sri Lankan context.
See http://www.groundviews.org/2006/12/26/for-a-sri-lankan-nationalism/
M,
This is a thought provoking post – and the best of what I’ve read of you on this site. Other posts by you were a tad annoying, but this one is introspective and well written.
Wrote a paper once on Parekh’s rather bloody tedious approach to multiculturalism in which I said (based on Parekh, Bhiku. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism. Cultural diversity and Political Theory London: Macmillan. Pp. 142 – 178):
Although Parekh’s careful handling of a contentious topic is useful and sensitive to the diversity of opinion around the issue of multiculturalism, he does contradict himself on occasion. On the one hand Parekh contends that not all cultures are equally valuable and thus do not deserve the same respect. Furthermore, Parekh insists that cultures have no essential substance and are internally differentiated – “every culture is internally varied, speaks in several voices and its range of interpretive possibility is often indeterminateâ€Â. On the other hand, Parekh also argues that the basis for a pluralistic and multicultural society is the framework of an institutionalized intercultural dialogue – where all parties are equal and the process of negotiating difference is dependent on all parties having similar amounts of self confidence and political and economic power. He also states that “culture is not a passive inheritance but an active process of creating meaning, not given but constantly redefined and reconstitutedâ€Â.
These two aspects of Parekh’s theory are clearly at odds with each other. It is not clear who is, should be and can be part of this grand multicultural dialogue. Several other questions spring to mind. Who selects the representatives? What criteria will be used? Who determines the criteria? Is the presupposition that inclusive democratic dialogue after protracted violent ethno-political conflict unworkable? Who facilitates this dialogue? Can all cultures participate as equals? Can equality itself subsume or alienate some cultures?
I submit that though Parekh’s grand vision of a multicultural dialogue sounds wonderful in theory, it has limited use in the (re)construction of identity after protracted ethno-political conflict. The vigorous contestation of ascriptive state policies on multiculturalism and polity in a post-conflict context versus group and individual links to culture and identity, and how this contestation itself might be violent, are not addressed Parekh’s theories of multiculturalism.
However, the interpretation of Parekh’s process of dialogic multiculturalism as the creation of a framework (or frameworks) where no particular identity is threatened or marginalised, can be seen as a tabula rasa for the creation of more accommodative identities and plural societies after protracted violent ethnic conflict. As Parekh states elsewhere, “only… open, fluid and dialogically constituted political theory can measure up to the richness and complexity of the multicultural world and reduce our ethnocentric biases†. Steeped in communal hagiography and zero-sum ethno-centric political discourse, Sri Lanka desperately needs holistic and inclusive multicultural dialogues in a process that celebrates difference within a united nation-state. Recent trends in supporting such dialogue have proved helpful in creating dialogue around demonised concepts such as federalism in attempts to create non-violent ways of managing conflict.
This endeavour is helped by Parekh’s description of culture as one that contains “both the residues of… largely dormant past beliefs and prefigurations of… newly emergent ones†(2000: 174). He goes on to say that “culture has no essence†. As Parekh states, this can give impetus to those who wish to create a more plural social fabric by giving reformers (or in a post-conflict context, those who wish to create structures for the non-violent negotiation of conflict and difference) the ability to re-interpret culture and tradition, to highlight “those that have been have been marginalised, suppressed or misconstrued by (a) dominant interpretation†.
“Arrack. cricket and baila are three other useful connectors in the Sri Lankan context.”
Aside from the romantic notion of these ever engendering any lasting reconciliation, or indeed as stable pillars of a rights-based approach to citizenship, what are you saying here?!
Sorry to say too that this is a rather masochistic notion of citizenship – drink and be merry is escapism, not responsible citizenship. Dream on dude.
The need, for the Government of Sri Lanka, to be totally secular and devoid of any religious affiliations was never more felt that now.
Is it necessary that SL must be classified by Constitution as a Buddhist Nation? What god does that bring its people?
Religions can be allowed to continue and be practised as they are being done now, and have been done before, in all freedom and humility. Why should the practice of one religion affect another in any way?
The secular path is the only path to peace!
Its a great point Kadalay and accepted that a secular state is one strategy towards peace, however my questions to you is this:
Why would a majority of Sinhalese react angrily if you suggest removal of protection for Buddhism from the constitution?
Kanaka,
Quite apart from the confounded conceptual confusion that bundles together “masochism” (whatever that means in this context) with “escapism”, you have, of course, entirely missed the metaphorical allegory denoted by the phrase “arrack, cricket and baila”.
If on the other hand what you are trying to say is “machoism” – that “arrack, cricket and baila” is essentially a male-centric worldview – then it is you, and not I, who is in a pseudo-feminist dreamland with regard contemporary Sri Lanka.
Building viable citizenship is as much a question of social attraction, fun, lifestyle and sense of humour as it is of sound concept. A universal problem with the approach of earnest “responsible citizenship” builders is that they are fundamentally lacking in these respects.
Two much seminar circuit argot about engineered “reconciliation”, and not enough fun, will never build a common Sri Lankan identity that lives in the hearts of ordinary people. For example, the total disappearance of the wonderful tri-lingual humour of Tarzie Vittachi and EMW Joseph, was at once a representaion of literary sophistication as well as a social confidence in diversity of a happier Ceylon. This has been replaced with a bizarre combination of rabid intolerance and jargon-spewing politcial correctness at either end of the spectrum of social commentary in present day Sri Lanka, which tells volumes about how much we have deteriorated.
I am no “romantic” (again, whatever that means). But I know something about social interaction among ordinary people in the taverns of Sri Lanka whether in the North, South or East, and I can tell you that “arrack, cricket and baila” have much more currency and meaning than any nonsensical talk of abstract reconciliation, responsible citizenship etc.
The (essential) value of conceptualising citizenship and identity at the academic and policy levels have absolutely no import if they cannot be translated into living meaning – which is precisely what “arrack, cricket and baila” does.
La Dolce Vita,
Excellent intervention. I wonder whether the contradiction in Parekh’s reasoning you highlighted cannot be resolved through the notion of ‘minimum universalism’ he advances, as middle path between extreme moral relativism and an essential human nature (what he calls ‘moral monism’).
His theory of non-ethnocentric universal values, which can be characterised as a form of ‘cosmopolitan pragmatism’ is constructed, as you point out, by means of cross-cultural dialogue between equals. The objective of “…a cross-cultural dialogue is to arrive at a body of values to which the all the participants can be expected to agree…Values are a matter of collective decision [based on reason]. Since moral values cannot be rationally demonstrated, our concern should be to build a consensus around those that can be shown to be rationally most defensible.â€Â
Therefore, basic reducible (morally monist) rules represented by a constitututional and citizenship compact on the basic socio-political cosmopolitanism of a post conflict polity, allows the space for cultural diversity to operate within a kind of ‘private’ (in the sense of non-coercively regulated) space.
Admittedly, this problem is more easily resolvable at the practical (i.e. through instruments such a constitutional law) level than at theory – but if it is in fact resolvable, then should we worry about its theoretical imperfection too much?
Che,
Parekh would have answered you in the affirmative, that the practical resolution, through praxis, of theoretical imperfections, was far more desirable and indeed proof of the strengthen of his theories, than the academic rodomontade around that which could not be created in the real world.
I think constitutional theory is a tad removed from the process of making, enacting and necessarily revising a new framework – such as Sri Lanka’s enduring tango with federalism. Therefore, I must take a position that pits me against the assumption of linear progression implied, to the best of my understanding, in your submission here:
“Therefore, basic reducible (morally monist) rules represented by a constitututional and citizenship compact on the basic socio-political cosmopolitanism of a post conflict polity, allows the space for cultural diversity to operate within a kind of ‘private’ (in the sense of non-coercively regulated) space.”
Simply put, the conditions of the first submission (cosmopolitanism of a post conflict polity) don’t (necessarily or by default) lead to the second (the space for cultural diversity to operate within a kind of ‘private’ (in the sense of non-coercively regulated) space.). I suspect you will agree, and argue that this is very much part and parcel of the makings of a constitutional, a process that really is a social contract with no finite resolution. Constitutional law, however, is a poor medicine when the supporting infrastructure of enlightened self-interest is woefully lacking. Sri Lanka’s constitutional evolution, and more often, regression, is marked by an enfilade of well intentioned yet ultimately miserable failures are imagining ways through which the core tenets of Parekh, written into a constitutional framework, can be communicated to the people sans the argot of lawyers and the frankly, precisely the kind of complex language that we are employing in this dialogue.
Federalism then, as a rationally defensible lowest common denominator amongst all communities as a mechanism through which we can address multiple grievances and aspirations, simply hasn’t come about. Clearly, important work has been done, but it is dwarfed by the enterprise ahead of us, and calls to question our commitment when many don’t even understand why we are saying, what we are.
Clearly, Parekh visioned his theories not with post-conflict or violent ridden societies in mind. Located in the West, Parekh’s social transformation is sans any anchor to real world conflict zones. For instance, although not against the positive aspects of a homogenous society, Parekh contends that “a culturally diverse society can reproduce most of the desirable qualities of the homogenous society, but the reverse is not the caseâ€Â. To recognise, manage, build upon and celebrate the potential of its fabric, Parekh contends that society today needs to promote the good life by “accommodating the demands of its inescapable internal diversity and reconstituting the traditional culture on a new basisâ€Â.
In Sri Lanka, that would mean looking at our flag, Article 2 of the constitution, language and a raft of other structural impediments to conflict transformation that simply are no go areas for the foreseeable future. We don’t have a Parekh, we don’t have a Tutu, we don’t even have a Gusmao. All we have is a fast blossoming Chavez – and to hell with your constitutional law, your non-coercively regulated space and while we are at it, your constitututional and citizenship compact on the basic socio-political cosmopolitanism of a post conflict polity.
This after all, is Sri Lanka.
Despite the the slightly alarming belligerence of your last paragraph, or perhaps because of it, I offer no excuse for an analysis that is “linear”. This, after all, is the standard inter-discplinary disagreement between lawyers and social scientists.
For presecisely the analytical and (to a lesser extent) empirical reasons that you adduce, I think that “Federalism…as a rationally defensible lowest common denominator amongst all communities as a mechanism through which we can address multiple grievances and aspirations” can in fact come about, and if at the end of this conflict cycle there is some form settlement, it (or something approximating a federal-type arrangement) will come about. It will be coercively imposed, there will be no initial legitimacy, but it will come about one day, and there will be nothing anyone can do about. This is the way constitutional change has happened in this country before, and this is the way it will happen in the future.
“Rationally defensible” has nothing to do with social transformation or public legitimacy. Thus, the irony is that the confederating exercise in Sri Lanka is already underway, and depends very much for its fruition, the existence of a “Chavez” (I prefer Milosevic) on either side of the ethnic divide.
Dear Che,
Read your discussion here with “La Dolce Vita” (honestly, this site attracts the most interesting monickers!) with great interest.
I’m concerned however about the coercive bent you attribute to the ultimate success of federalism in Sri Lanka – “It will be coercively imposed, there will be no initial legitimacy, but it will come about one day, and there will be nothing anyone can do about. This is the way constitutional change has happened in this country before, and this is the way it will happen in the future.”
Not going to argue with you about the past – consider us in agreement here – but surely the process for constitutional reform as process should be something different especially if we are looking at it as a central mechanism of conflict transformation?
While your point is taken – the confederacy of Sri Lanka seems to be underway, I don’t think that the solution your espouse here – coercive federalism – is the answer. In fact, to espouse such a process would be the very anti-thesis of federalism, understood here as a new and evolving social compact to address systemic failures of governance in Sri Lanka. And here, I am partial to the reading of Leftist reading of Federalism by Vasuki Nesiah, which at the end he states:
“In sum, I am arguing that a left approach to constitutionalism needs to simultaneously walk two paths – one inside the terrain of liberal legalism, using the space of liberal constitutionalism to advance struggles for deepening democracy and social justice, and another path whose terms are not limited by how the written constitution defines the field of the political – a path that fundamentally challenges the constraints of merely legal terrains.”
and goes on to say:
“A left approach to federalism in Sri Lanka is not merely a project of constitutional tinkering regarding division of powers between center and state, clarifying the number of administrative units, or even establishing directive principles regarding state responsibilities. We on the left need to press for self-determination in the deepest sense of the term – an ever vigilant engagement with constitutions and constitutionalism not for a once off constitutional settlement but for an ongoing political engagement radical redirecting, institutional experimentation and imaginative exploration to advance distributive justice, ‘alternative pluralisms’ and democratic participation. ”
Warm regards,
Sanjana
P.S. If oil and gas are discovered to MR’s glee in the South, wouldn’t that make him more Chavez than Milosevic?
Hatt (mi sole mio – another monicker for your collection),
I need to first read Vasuki in order to properly respond to you. Is this from Lines?
Sorry Che – meant to put the URL in my last post. Yes, it’s from Lines here – http://www.lines-magazine.org/Art_Feb04/Vasuki_david.htm
Des,
Why, may I ask, do you think that Buddhism needs to be protected by a man-made Constitution? I am sure it can and will survive on the merits of its teachings and the greatness of its teacher.
No religion needs protection from mortals. They must survive on their own merits.
“No religion needs protection from mortals. They must survive on their own merits.”
Says who, you? Islam is protected in many West, South and South-East Asian countries. Church of England is the official religious institution in England and the Monarch is the “defender of the faith” who must be “saved” by the “God”. The Norwegian constitution legally compells Lutheran Christian parents to raise their children in that religion. There are countless examples from all corners of the world.
Hi Kadalay,
My interest is in what people need and want and most Sinhalese people seem very scared that taking Buddhism out of the constitution will hurt Buddhism. So unless their fears are addressed, the suggestion will be a non starter.