Multiculturalism in a Globalized Society

Multiculturalism in a globalized society explores the concepts and debates surrounding the complex modern phenomenon of multiculturalism, and its varied effects on the advanced industrial nations of the world with clarity and concision, it focuses on the interrelated ties of ethnicity, race, nationalism in a world where globalizing processes have made such ties increasingly important in economic, political and cultural terms.
Multiculturalism relates to communities containing multiple cultures. It usually refers to the simple fact of cultural diversity. It is generally applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometime at the organizational level, like schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a normative term, it refers to ideologies or policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization; in this sense, multiculturalism is a society “at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.” (Heywood 2000 p.227). Such ideologies or policies vary widely, including country to country, ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to a policy of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group they belong to. However, two main different and seemingly inconsistent strategies have developed through different Government policies and strategies. The first focuses on interaction and communication between different cultures. Interactions of cultures provide opportunities for the cultural differences to communicate and interact to create multiculturalism. Such approaches are also often known as interculturalism. The second centers on diversity and cultural uniqueness. Cultural isolation can protect the uniqueness of the local culture of a nation or area and also contribute to global cultural diversity. A common aspect of many policies following the second approach is that they avoid presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural community values as central (Bloor 2010 p. 272). Multiculturalism is the doctrine that several different cultures rather than one culture can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country.
Multiculturalism is seen as a fairer system that allows people to truly express who they are within a society, that is more tolerant and that adapts better to social issues. Trotman and Parekh argue that culture is not one definable thing based on one race or religion, but rather the result of multiple factors that change as the world changes.
Historically, support for modern multiculturalism stems from the changes in Western societies after World War II, in what Susanne Wessendorf calls the "human rights revolution", in which the horrors of institutionalized racism and ethnic cleansing became almost impossible to ignore in the wake of the Holocaust; with the collapse of the European colonial system, as colonized nations in Africa and Asia successfully fought for their independence and pointed out the racist underpinnings of the colonial system; and, in the United States in particular, with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, which criticized ideals of assimilation that often led to prejudices against those who did not act according to Anglo-American standards and which led to the development of academic ethnic studies programs as a way to counteract the neglect of contributions by racial minorities in classrooms. As this history shows, multiculturalism in Western countries was seen as a useful set of strategies to combat racism, to protect minority communities of all types, and to undo policies that had prevented minorities from having full access to the opportunities for freedom and equality promised by the liberalism that has been the hallmark of Western societies since the Age of Enlightenment.
As multiculturalism is a society at ease with the rich tapestry of human life and the desire amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit. C. James Trotman (2002) states that multiculturalism is valuable because it "uses several disciplines to highlight neglected aspects of our social history, particularly the histories of women and minorities and promotes respect for the dignity of the lives and voices of the forgotten. By closing gaps, by raising consciousness about the past, multiculturalism tries to restore a sense of wholeness in a postmodern era that fragments human life and thought." Tariq Modood argues that in the early years of the 21st Century, multiculturalism "is most timely and necessary, and we need more not less", since it is "the form of integration" that best fits the ideal of egalitarianism, has "the best chance of succeeding" in the "post-9/11, post 7/7" world, and has remained "moderate and pragmatic". Bhikhu Parekh counters what he sees as the tendencies to equate multiculturalism with racial minorities "demanding special rights" and to see it as promoting a "thinly veiled racism". Instead, he argues that multiculturalism is in fact "not about minorities" but "is about the proper terms of relationship between different cultural communities", which means that the standards by which the communities resolve their differences, like, "the principles of justice" must not come from only one of the cultures but must come "through an open and equal dialogue between them."
Critics of multiculturalism often debate whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, are sustainable, paradoxical, or even desirable. It is argued that Nation states, who would previously have been synonymous with a distinctive cultural identity of their own, lose out to enforced multiculturalism and that this ultimately erodes the host nations ' distinct culture.
Moreover, Multiculturalism alienates people, even altogether create community division. Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.
Furthermore diversity can create hate and resilience amongst people. Ethnologist Frank Salter writes “Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism”. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government 's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure. Moscow beggars receive more gifts from fellow ethnics than from other ethnics. A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities. Dick Lamm, former three-term Democratic governor of the US state of Colorado, wrote in his essay "I have a plan to destroy America": "Diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent."
Multiculturalism increases diversity. Allowing people to preserve their own cultures allows other people to understand different cultural practices and ways of living life. This exposure to new experiences enriches the cultural practices of all: we are better able to make choices about the way in which we wish to live our lives, whether that is a matter of what food we eat or what religion we practice. The Amish community in rural America is just one example; 'it is not necessary to live an Amish life to appreciate what they can teach us ', the mere knowledge that one can be happy without constant access to life 's modern technologies is a humbling thought. However In reality, multiculturalism is a form of segregation: cultural practices will not diffuse across the artificial borders, because people view the two communities as very distinct. That is, they view the cultural practices of other communities as something "they" rather than "we" do. True diversity is achieved through integration: even when people integrate they retain some of their cultural practices, and these can be experienced by others as something their friends do, rather than something a whole separate community does.
Therefore the march of globalization seems inexorable, with effects felt throughout the world. These effects include, but are not limited to, reduced genetic diversity in agriculture (loss of crop varieties and livestock breeds), loss of wild species, spread of exotic species, pollution of air, water and soil, accelerated climatic change, exhaustion of resources, and social and spiritual disruption. The market cannot be relied on to control the environmental and other costs of globalization. Although its present dominance creates an impression of permanence, a conjunction of formidable limiting factors is even now acting to curb the process of globalization-possibly to end it altogether. Technological fixes cannot overcome these limiting factors. The architects of globalization have ignored the social, biological and physical constraints on their created system. Critics of globalization have noted that global free trade promotes the social and economic conditions most likely to undermine its own existence. The same can be said of the biological and physical limiting factors-especially, in the short term, the dwindling supplies of cheap energy. The necessary opposition that has formed to counter the worst features of globalization must keep its dangerous side-effects in the public eye, and develop alternative, workable socio-economic systems that have a strong regional element and are not dependent on centralized, complex technologies. It is far easier-and more realistic-to predict the disruption and possible demise of globalization than to devise strategies to cope with the environmental upheavals to come. Presumably, physical environmental changes, including increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, changes in temperature, melting of permafrost and oxidation of boreal peat deposits, changes in the distribution and abundance of rainfall and storm events, sea level rise and changes in the ozone shield will have to be dealt with primarily on an ad hoc basis, to the limited extent possible. Many biological changes, such as introductions of exotic species and extinctions will similarly have effects that are easy to describe but difficult or impossible to counter, especially with the reduced economic resources available.
Nevertheless, opponents of the worst abuses of globalization have no excuse to abandon their efforts and wait for nature to bring globalization to bay. In the realm of social and economic life, much work needs to be done to end the evils of the growing disparities of wealth, the exploitation of South by North, community disempowerment, and cultural and moral impoverishment-all of which globalization fosters. Responsible critics of globalization must do more to show the connection between globalization and its dangerous side-effects, and to keep this association in the public eye. Nor is the task entirely negative; we face the challenge of developing workable socio-economic systems that have a strong regional element and are not dependent on centralized, complex technologies-systems that preserve and enhance wealth in a sustainable way. And we must do this before the chaos of resource exhaustion, ecosystem collapse and global climate change makes the job even more difficult-or impossible. International trade in goods and ideas will and should continue, but the only form of globalization that is acceptable is one that unites nations in meeting global threats and in preserving the environments, life forms and civilizations of this planet.
In conclusion, by establishing the existence of a global public good, the sustainability opens up and makes plural the human identities, brings down the partition walls of multiculturalism and offers a meaning and a direction to the interculturality around a common civilizational project. But the globalization of developments, that requires the adaptation of human needs to the natural capacities, is challenging the economic globalization rationalities imposed by the State/Market couple. It demands the emergence of civil actor, local and world, to value the cultural biodiversity and to allow the intercultural implementation of sustainability cooperative links by the local and for global sustainability.

REFERENCES
Andrew Heywood (17 Oct 2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 227
Kevin Bloor (Feb 2010). The Definitive Guide to Political ideologies. AuthorHouse. p. 272
Thornal L. Harper (13 January 2011). Dialogue in urban and regional planning. Taylor and Francis. p. 50
Kevin Malik (2010-05-17). “Guardian,co.uk”. London: Guardian retrieved 2010-12-17
Anne – Marie Mooney Cofter (28 February 2011). Culture clash: an International Legal perspective on ethnic discrimination. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p.13
C. James Trotman (2002). Multiculturalism: roots and realities. Indiana University Press. pp. 9=10
Susanne Wessendorf. The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices, p. 35; accessed through Google books
Parekh Bhikhu C (2002). Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory. Harvard University Press. p. 13
Putnam, Robert D. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first Century – The 2006 Johan Skytte Drive, “Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2) June 2007
Sen, Amartya k. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco, CA: Holden-Day
Dollar, David, krouy, Aart. “Trade, Growth, and Poverty”. Finance and Development. International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 6 June 2011
http://alt.sagepub.com/content/33/1/29.abstract

References: Andrew Heywood (17 Oct 2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 227 Kevin Bloor (Feb 2010) Thornal L. Harper (13 January 2011). Dialogue in urban and regional planning. Taylor and Francis. p. 50 Kevin Malik (2010-05-17) Anne – Marie Mooney Cofter (28 February 2011). Culture clash: an International Legal perspective on ethnic discrimination. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p.13 C Susanne Wessendorf. The multiculturalism backlash: European discourses, policies and practices, p. 35; accessed through Google books Parekh Bhikhu C (2002)