Change and Development In Multiculturalism
3.1. Cultural Change
Haviland (1990) says that one of the most frequently used terms to describe social ana cultural changes as these are occurring today is modernization. This is most clearly defined as an all-encompassing and global process of cultural and socio- economic change, whereby developing societies seek to acquire some of the characteristics common to industrially advanced societies. If one looks very closely at this definition, one sees that 'becoming modem' really means 'becoming like us' with the very clear implication that being like us is to be antiquated and obsolete. Not only is this ethnocentric, but it also but it also fosters the notion that these other societies must be changed to be more like us, irrespective of other
considerations. It is unfortunate that the term modernization continues to be so widely used (Haviland 1990:429).
The process of modernization, which may be best understood to be consisting of four sub-processes, of which one is technological development. In the course of modernization, traditional knowledge and techniques give way to the application of scientific knowledge borrowed mainly form the West. For example, the use of the computer for so many tasks that formerly was done through traditional methods.
Another sub-process is agricultural development, represented by a shift in emphasis from subsistence farming to commercial farming.
The third sub-process is industrialization, with greater emphasis placed on placed in inanimate forms of energy- especially fossil fuels - to power mechanics.
Haviland 1990:429). Human and animal power become less important, as do handicrafts in general.
The fourth process is urbanization, marked particularly by people moving from rural settlements unto cities.
Cultural loss is another factor within multiculturalism, says Haviland (1990).
Cultural loss occurs when we think of change as an accumulation of innovations;
new things being added to those already there. For example, back in biblical times, chariots and carts were in widespread use in the Middle East, but by the sixth century A.D., wheeled vehicles had virtually disappeared from Morocco to Afghanistan. They were replaced by camels, not because there was a reversion to the past, but because camels, used as a pack animals, worked better, and was able to ford rivers, cross deserts and mountain terrains (Haviland 1990:419).
Acculturation has an effect on cultures.It is a process when major changes that occur as a result of prolonged contact between societies.Itis cultures losing their
cultural identities and form a single culture; one culture can borrow from another culture without being in the least acculturated. Sometimes, though one of the cultures loses its autonomy, but retains its identity as a sub-culture, such as caste, class, or ethnic group (Haviland 1990: 419).
Thomson (1997) states different forms of Multiculturalism:
The fIrst is, Isolationist multiculturalism. This refers to a vision of society in which different cultural groups lead autonomous lives and engage in minimum mutual interaction necessitated by their having to live together. The Millet system under the under the Ottoman Empire in which different religious communities led self contained lives and ran their affairs themselves was this kind of society. In modem times such groups as the Amish in the USA and a small group of Black Muslims in the USA prefer a society that makes no or minimal demands on them and leaves them alone in pursue their ways of life (Thomson 1997: 184).
Accommodative multiculturalism refers to a society which rests on a dominant culture but makes appropriate adjustments and provisions for minority cultural needs. Itinterprets and applies its laws, formulates and implements its policies, in a culturally sensitive manner, and gives its minorities freedom and sometimes the resources to maintain their languages and cultures. Multiculturalism in Britain, France, and several European countries has taken this from. As we saw, it is also the form of multiculturalism generally preferred by the old and new, mainly non- Muslim, Asian immigrants to the USA, Europe and elsewhere (Thomson 1997:184). These groups do not challenge the dominant culture of the wider society either because they admire several aspects of it, or because they generally take an instrumental view of it, or because as immigrants do not think it right to question the way in which the wider society is organized. They accept it as a fact of life, learn to negotiate their way around in it, and build their autonomous cultural lives within it.
Autonomist multiculturalism refers to a vision of society in which major cultural groups seek equality with the dominant culture and aim to lead autonomous lives within a collectively acceptable political framework. Their primary concern is to maintain their ways of life, which they think have as much right to do as the dominant cultural group, and to enjoy the maximum possible degree of self- government, they challenge the hegemony of the dominant cultural group and seek to create a society in which they can all exist as equal partners leading their self- contained lives (Thomson 1997:184).
This form of multiculturalism is favoured by the indigenous peoples all over the world- the Quebecois, the Basques, the Bretons, and others. Although is both possible and popular when the cultural minorities are territorially concentrated, it is also demanded by some groups of Muslims migrants in children in Muslim schools, to have their own self-governing national bodies.
Critical or interactive multiculturalism refers to a society in which cultural groups are concerned not so much to lead autonomous lives as to create a collective culture that reflects and affirms their distinct perspectives. Since the dominant culture is reluctant to do so, cultural minorities challenge it both intellectually and politically, It is also often the case that the dominant culture has taken, and enforced by all means as its disposal, a demeaning view of the capacities, cultures and histories of the minorities, which the latter often internalize with obvious damage to their self-respect, self-confidence and capacity to compete as equals.
Their view of themselves is closely bound with the dominant culture's view of them, the latter in turn is but a converse of its view of itself, and that view both expresses and legitimizes the prevailing structure of power. Cultural minorities therefore have an additional reason to question the dominant culture's political and intellectual hegemony and to create a climate conducive culture. As discussed, this form of multiculturalism is much favoured by black leaders and intellectuals of the left in the USA, Britain and elsewhere (Thomson1997: 184).
Cosmopolitan multiculturalism, comments Thomson (1997), is breaking through the bounds of cultures altogether and to create a society in which individuals, now no longer committed to specific cultures, freely engage in inter-cultural experiments and evolve a cultural life of their own. According to its advocates, human beings, who are reflective and self-determining agents, are neither determined or constituted by nor under any obligation to maintain and transmit their culture. They should therefore view all cultures including their own as a resource, as a range of opinions, and either freely choose or, better still, evolve one that appeals to them most.
Inextreme form, cosmopolitan multiculturalism sees cultures as articles in a global supermarket. In its more moderate form it loosens up cultures and encourages critical self-reflection and intercultural dialogue. Cosmopolitan multiculturalism is much favoured by diasporic intellectuals and some groups of liberals, and has a distinct post- modernist orientation (Thomson 1997:183-185).
Thomson (2000) comments of multicultural movements in Britain.
When the Afro-Carribbean and Asian immigrants began to arrive in the 1950s, there was a widespread view that they should - and would indeed want to-assimilate British culture. Their languages were not taught in schools; they were discouraged from speaking them on school premises; and if their number exceeded a certain percentage, they were bussed to schools where there were fewer of them. Sikhs refusing to wear helmets were not allowed to ride on motor-cycles, and the courts of law often refused to take account of cultural differences. Several surveys and the 1958 riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill showed that black and Asian assimilation was rendered difficult by two factors: widespread discrimination against them in such areas as employment and housing, and white anxiety about the presence of too many immigrants . Successive governments therefore settled upon the dual strategy of anti- discrimination legislation and restricted immigrants as ways of facilitating minority assimilation.
From the 1960s onwards, as in the US, the debate took a cultural turn. As the second generation of Asians began to go to school, their dietary habits, dress, reluctance to attend religious assemblies and to take part in certain sports, attracted attention. Like their US counterparts, their parents feared for the stability of their family and communal structures, and began to demand greater respect and some institutional provision for the teaching of their languages and cultures. The prolonged Sikh agitation for the right to wear
turbans when riding motor-cycles or working on building sites, the Asian women employees' refusal to wear required uniforms in preference to the their cultural beliefs and practices, forced the country to start taking account of Asian cultural needs. The fact that this was a period when liberal thinking was quite strong in Britain also helped.
So far as the Afro-Caribbeans were concerned, it was initially believed that they were culturally British. They spoke he same language, shared the same religion, dressed similarly, regarded Britain as their mother country, knew and generally identified with its history, played cricket, loved sports, shared British popular culture. Gradually this view began to change.
Creole was acknowledged to be not corrupt English, but a distinct dialect;
Afrro-Caribbean Christianity had a distinct character and content, their family structures, lifestyles and patterns of social relation were different. Due also to the racism they were experiencing in British society, many Afro- Caribbeans felt alienated from it and sought to redefine their identity in non- British and largely cultural terms.
Britain began to realize that its immigrants were not just ' black' or 'coloured' but distinct communities with their own cultural identities, and that it was now a culturally diverse or plural society. Increasingly it came to be described, especially in liberal circles , as multiracial , multi-ethnic , multicultural and, in the aftermath of the Rushdie affair, as multi-faith . Although the term were rarely defined and distinguished, the contemporary usage indicated that the first term was preferred when the Afro- Caribbeans were in mind, the second when both they and the Asians were intended , the third when both of them and white subcultures were in mind, and the fourth when the reference was to religious groups. Since the term 'race' was increasingly seen to be problematic , and since the term culture was too wide , the term multi-ethnic became most popular. It is striking that blacks and Asians were described as ethnic minorities rather than as ethnic groups, a term widely referred in the USA and Canada, and sometimes as minority communities, a term rarely used in any other western country (Thomson 2000 :174-176).
In South Africa, similar terms are used to describe minority groups. For example in the apartheid years, Indians were supposed to live in their own townships.
Today, the vast Indian townships like Phoenix and Chatsworth are reminiscent of 'group area' laws of separate developments within the apartheid structure of .the 'old South Africa', until the said laws were scrapped. Today the cry from
political groups is to protect the interests of 'minority groups'. Although Indians
have been in some ways been influenced by Western cultures, they have their own identities as far as religion, language, diet, and manner of dress.
Unlike the USA and Britain, multiculturalism in Canada had a relatively easy birth with the government acting as an obliging midwife. Over the years the country had attracted large bodies of immigrants, some of whom retained their culture bit many abandoned it in favour of assimilation into the mainstream Canadian society. In 1961 Canadians of British ancestry made up just under 40 percent of the population, those of French ancestry just over 30 percent, native peoples just over one percent, and 'others' - a rapidly growing group of immigrants and a ready constituency for multiculturalism-just under 25 percent (Thomson 2000: 180).
When Quebec demanded greater cultural and political autonomy and equal recognition in the country's self-definition, the federal government set up in 1963 the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Faced with these objections, the Trudeau government replaced biculturalism with multiculturalism and only insisted with bilingualism. To declare Canada bicultural would have come close to accepting that it consisted of two distinct territorially based communities and that Quebec was the ethnic homeland of the Francophones. (Thopmson 2000:180-181). Trudeau announced a policy of 'multiculturalism within a bilingual framework' and officially committed the country to it in 1971.
According to the above information, we see that multiculturalism is more prevalent in western countries like the USA, Britain and Canada to name a few. This is because of immigrants to these countries who settled there took their cultures with them.
On the other hand a country, for example, Saudi Arabia, is predominantly mono- cultural in nature, because it is an Islamic country governed with Islamic laws and with cultures that are Middle-Eastern and Islamic. With a exception of different religious sects in Saudi Arabia, the country is said to be mono-cultural in its nature.
Herskovits (1963) who quotes Linton, says that there are certain degrees of similarity and difference in behaviour to be found in culture. The first of these he
calls 'universals', which are those beliefs and forms of behaviour to be expected of any normal member of a society: language, types of clothing and housing, the way a group orders its social relations. The second category comprises the 'specialties', which are composed of those particular aspects of behaviour that characterise the members of specialised groups within the larger social whole. (Herskovits 1963:
50)