What is Multiculturalism; E. Mack

by Eric Mack O ccasionally one thinks that, perhaps because it has become so tedious, mul ticulturalism has begun to pass from the scene. Unfortunately, such thoughts seem entirely too optimistic in light of the great extent to which multiculturalist slogans have become culturally and institutionally ensconced, the great emotional and financial stake that multiculturalists have in perpet uating their visions, and the degree to which, usually under false pretenses, mul ticulturalists are able to initiate new believ ers into their sect. So it probably is still of some value to offer a dissection and critique of the ideology of multiculturalism-a dis section and critique that focuses on the rotten core rather than the surface that is polished for marketing purposes. Behind the mask of a benign "celebration of diversity" lies a deeply corrosive rejec tion of all general norms, rules, or truths.

This rejection of general norms, both those dealing with knowledge and those dealing with morals, derives from multicultural ism's insistence that there are many essen tially closed systems of perception, feeling, thought, and evaluation-each associated with some racially, ethnically, or sexually defined group. Thus, multiculturalism quite explicitly and appropriately sees itself as rejecting the Enlightenment belief in stan dards of reason, evidence, and objectivity, and principles of justice and freedom that apply to all human beings. Dr. Mack is a professor ofphilosophy at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Cultural Relativism Multiculturalism is, in effect, a dressed up and politicized version of cultural rela tivism-the doctrine that every group has its own distinct but equally sound patterns of perception, thought, and choice. According to cultural relativism, no one can validly object to beliefs and actions of any group which reflect that group's own indigenous worldview. While cultural relativists have always claimed to be friends of tolerance indeed the only true friends of tolerance this doctrine actually implies that no one can object to any group's intolerance, if intolerance is that group's thing. Neither the cultural relativist nor the multicultura list can object to Mayan infant sacrifice, or Spanish Inquisitional torture, or Nazi geno cide because each of these practices is validated by the perspective within which it arises. To criticize indigenous intolerance or any "culturally authentic" practice no mat ter how brutal or exploitative, one must apply general, trans-cultural norms which both cultural relativism and its multicultural descendent denounce as "imperialist." But multiculturalism's moral relativism pre cludes any such appeal and, hence, it pre cludes any affirmative case for tolerance.

In addition to its moral relativism, multi culturalism also proclaims (as the one great Objective Truth) that all truth, objectivity, and evidence are also relative. Each "cul ture" has its own truth, objectivity, and standards of reason and evidence. Thus, whatever beliefs any "culture" emits, they 684 are validated by the fact of their emission. This, of course, precludes any rational dia logue among individuals. Each individual is merely a representative of a certain bio logically defined perspective with its own idiosyncratic, but self-validating, biases. Hence, each individual must agree with members of his or her own group and be unable to make rational contact with mem bers of other groups. By chanting his mantra of relativism, the multiculturalist can evade honest confron tation with all intellectual challenges. Con sider the argument that multiculturalism cannot support tolerance since grotesquely intolerant social orders can be as true to their distinctive ways of perceiving, cogniz ing, and feeling, as any other social order.

According to the multiculturalist mantra, this argument itself is merely an expression of one particular perspective, the Eurocen tric-hence, "linear" and "logocentric" mode of perception and thought. Thus, this challenge, like all attempts at rational dis putation, can be rejected by anyone who "doesn't feel that way about it." Tolerance In contrast to the multiculturalist, the genuine advocate of tolerance believes that, despite the profound differences among in dividuals, there are some fundamental gen eral norms-including standards of rational discourse and norms that extend freedom and the protection of justice to all persons in virtue of their common humanity. Only such general norms provide a principled basis for rejecting the suppression of dis liked opinion, speech, religious conviction, economic decisions, and so on. It is pre cisely to the extent that we articulate and comply with such rules that each of us, strange as we are to others and strange as many others are to us, are able to live at peace, indeed, in fruitful mutual advantage with one another.

Multiculturalism modifies cultural rela tivism in two important ways. First, it ig nores cultures as ordinarily understood and focuses instead on biologically defined 685 groups within our society who may be re cruited into political alliances based on heightening their sense of alienation and victimization. Thus, as the perceived polit ical opportunities dictate, the multicultural ist focuses on the supposed existence of sui generis Afrocentric, Female, Hispanic, Ho mosexual, and/or Native American modes of thought and feeling. Multiculturalism is fundamentally anti individualistic because it expects each indi vidual to conform in his or her perceptions, thoughts, and assessments to those pro nounced to be the authentic perceptions, thoughts, and assessments of that individu aI's group. All genuine blacks must share the Black perspective. All genuine women must share the enshrined Female perspec tive. All homosexuals must share the Ho mosexual perspective-and so on. Your thoughts are either the collectively consti tuted thoughts of your racial, ethnic, or sexual group or they are thoughts insidi ously imposed upon you by the dominant White Male perspective. Group-think is the mark of authenticity. Multicultural "diver sity" both radically cleaves humanity into disparate biological collectivities and radi cally homogenizes people within these col lectivities. For the multiculturalist, diver sity is merely superficial.

Multiculturalism's second modification of cultural relativism consists in its expulsion of one supposed worldview-what multicul turalism misidentifies as the White Male perspective-from the Eden of equally sound worldviews. All group perspectives are equal, but one is less equal than others. The supposed reasoning on behalf of this expulsion is that the so-called White Male worldview is uniquely guilty of commitment to common objective norms of thought and action. Hence, it is said, this rogue perspec tive uniquely stands in judgment of other worldviews, subjecting them to its wickedly colonialist epistemic and moral standards. Thus, this perspective-as befits its White, Male, heterosexual roots-is uniquely total izing, aggressive, and victimizing. In reality, of course, what is being con demned by multiculturalism is not some 686 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1996 idiosyncratic White male, heterosexual per spective, but rather the human enterprise of seeking, articulating, and employinggeneral norms that help us to distinguish between the true and the false, the plausible and the implausible, the good and the evil, the permissible and the impermissible.

The irony is that multiculturalism wants to hew to its own judgments about the special defects of Western thought and the special injustice and oppressiveness of the liberal Western social and economic order while insisting that it cannot be expected tojustify (or even identify) the philosophical or empirical premises of its own judgments. The excuse for this irresponsibility is the ritualistic claim that to accept these de mands for justification is to succumb to the Eurocentric hegemony. Yet, at the same time, we are supposed to accept the truth of the multiculturalists' historical and cultural analyses and the verity of their all-embrac ing evaluations. Multiculturalism presents us, then, with the spectacle of sweeping, confident, and impassioned moral, historical, economic, sociological, and aesthetic judgments and a simultaneous and often self-righteous. re fusal to take any intellectual responsibility for any of those judgments.

Was Hitler Evil? In a campus debate a couple of years ago with an earnest multiculturalist, I strove to help her see that she could not both accept multiculturalism's relativism and continue confidently to proclaim the profound evils of various regimes. In desperation, I ap pealed to the instance of Hitler and Nazism. "Given this relativism," I asked her, "can you even assert that Hitler was evil?" "Well," she said after a moment of thought, "I'm not valorizing him." The primary purpose of multiculturalist educational proposals is to instill in students and (increasingly) in employees and the population at large the demonology that the apparently benign, tolerant, liberal order is actually the most profoundly oppressive order ever to have existed. People are to be initiated into the delights of victimhood. They are to learn how to perceive them selves as victims (or victimizers)-not of.

superficial wrongs like murder, mayhem, and robbery-but of ever so subtle, exquis itely cunning, psycholinguistic domination. It is psycholinguistic domination, Le., the "construction" of seductively hegemonic themes and discourses, that make the de rivative evils of racial or sexual exploita tion possible (indeed, inevitable). To recog nize oneself as such a victim is to attain multiculturalist enlightenment and, not in conveniently, an all-purpose ticket for the increasingly lucrative multiculturalist gravy train. Students especially are to be taught that arguments, doctrines, works of art, or pol icy are never to be evaluated on their own merits. For there is no such thing as the objective merit or demerit of an argument, doctrine, work of art, or policy. Rather, these and all the other products of the human mind are to be revealed as mere "valorizations" of power. They are to be deconstructed to disclose their inner char acter as instruments of repression-or, pre sumably in the case of the privileged con struction known as multiculturalism, as an instrument of heroic resistance.

But is resistance objectively different from repression? Is resistance objectively better than repression? These sly questions might tempt the unwary multiculturalist back into the clutches of Enlightenment "discourse." But the well-versed multicul turalist can recognize the serpent with her alluring offer of knowledge and can, as his greatest act of resistance, doggedly close his mind. Throughout the academy and eventually society at large, the multiculturalist de mands that the classification of people by race, ethnicity, sex and/or sexual orienta tion be emphasized at every possible oppor tunity. Individuals are not to be seen or judged as individuals but as tokens of this or that tribe or caste. Since no one from one tribe (with the exception of white males) can be judged by members of any other tribe, each racial, ethnic, or sexual group must be assigned its own homeland, its own reser vation within the university and within the worlds of commerce (cf., set-asides) and government (cf., Lani Guinier).