Multiculturalism is a word coined in the1960’s to describe an almost dream-like situation whereby peoples of very different ethnic backgrounds might live together with harmony and in peace – Caucasian, African, Asian and so on. This situation has arisen largely because of huge waves of immigration brought about by political and economic pressures, together with the relative cheapness and ease of world travel, especially since the second world war.
Differences have arisen not to mention, at times, violent conflict because of age-long differences in religious belief and practice, social customs and political systems. Of these it must be admitted that religion is the most decisive factor in terms of dress and diet, sexual relationships, marriage and family life and to a lesser degree with regard to law and order, education and medicine.
Just one example concerning dress was that in February 2004, the French National Assembly voted 494 –36 in favour of banning ‘conspicuous’ religious symbols in schools. France has a long tradition of dividing state and religious matters on the ground that prevents the state from falling a victim to religious fundamentalism. It is argued also that it ensures that Moslem girls and women receive equal rights as French citizens. However the wearing of a veil or hijab is fundamental teaching of Islam and whilst this issue has no relevance to Christian beliefs, as France is still nominally a Christian country, for the Moslem it is a serious denial of their fundamental right to practise their religion. On the other hand, as Islam treats men and women unequally, it could be argued that the French parliament is striking a blow for gender equality.
Whilst differences concerning dress and diet may seem to some relatively minor matters, they do have widespread repercussions in the context of a western liberal democratic society. Not least where social and sexual relationships between the sexes are concerned and especially in the area of arranged marriages. It could be that the personal moral standards of, for example, Islam in relation to alcohol or the use of money far exceed those of a semi-decadent western society, but unfortunately this often only exacerbates the situation.
So the aim is to find some system of multiculturalism whereby these cultural and religious differences can co-exist without any infringement of individual liberties and yet where the state can claim the allegiance of all its citizens. Recent political philosophers have come up with various models by which cultural differences can be resolved or even assimilated. There is the view that whilst we need culture in a wide sense, we do not need to exist in a single culture such as an ethnic community but develop ‘a cultural hybridity’ – a sort of mixed nationality. Another view is to devise a constitution which recognises basic affinities beween different cultures and builds upon this consensus. Another model which carries this view further is that of an ‘overlapping consensus’ much promoted by the late John Rawls (1921 – 2002) an American political philosopher.
Rawls points out that Islam does have a long history of toleration of Jews and Christians and stands upon a monotheism which incorporates prophets both Jewish and Christian; that so long as secular law is not incompatible with Islamic holy law (Shariah) it should be obeyed; that the ‘submission’ or ‘self-surrender’ ( for which the name ‘Islam’ stands) is seen as a self-imposed discipline which is not necessarily incompatable with a respect for human individual freedom; that the requirements for women to cover themselves is to be interpreted as symbolic of modesty rather than mandatory and so on. It is, of course, debatable as to how even these religious practises can sit easily with a culturally liberal Western Society.
Religious intolerance is not the prerogative of any particular religion as our own colonial history indicates and the establishment of a liberal democracy in Britain has taken many centuries and alas much bloodshed to achieve. In the history of the British Isles there has been the slow and often painful assimilation of differing ethnic cultures. But with the exception of certain minorities a single homogenious culture has evolved which in recent decades, as we have already noted, has been challenged. At its best, although not without some dark periods, the Christian Faith has taught the importance of mutual self-respect, individual freedom, impartial justice and compassion. Religious fundamentalism and bureaucratic legalism have been frowned upon and as a result political and social stability have ensued despite two world wars. But the advent of foreign, unfamiliar cultures together with contemporary campaigns against racism and for the establishment of human rights have led to the tensions and conflicts already noted. In spite of current philosophical notions the real solution to the problem of multiculturalism must take the pattern of assimilation, as has been the case with the adoption by immigrants of English as their main language. Beyond that the universal adoption of toleration and mutual understanding is necessary with the old principle of both ‘give and take’ being applicable to all sides. In any case both religious beliefs and cultural norms are continually subject to change if not in terms of fundamental principals certainly in the manner or fashion in which those principles are applied. For all ethnic groupings the clock cannot be turned back, for example to cultural practises of say African tribes before colonial influences overtook them. The human race must find some common ground of mutual respect and compassion if any semblence of harmony and peace is to be established. Whilst showing a personal bias, I must assert the belief that the Christian Faith at its best has the moral and spiritual resources to bring this about though this is not to say that other Faiths cannot make a vital contribution.
In spite of the moral and self-righteous strictures of religious extremists the essential Christian message is not founded upon law but upon grace which represents not a command but an offer or invitation to follow Christ and it is this form of freedom which must exist at the heart of any society or nation, multicultural or otherwise.