After British Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech in Munich stating the failure of ‘multiculturalism’ just last week, the world is brimming with debate on what seems to be one of the most sensitive and emotional topics in politics. The doubt lies in the lack of clarity in defining the term. Can something fail if no one knows what it means or what it stands for? Can something be resolved if there is no definitive understanding of precisely what it is?
In his speech David Cameron defines “the doctrine of state multiculturalism” as a strategy which has “encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream”. He states that government has failed to provide the means of a community to which they can belong and thus led to people being able to tolerate segregated communities rather than learn how to integrate their different ideals into a common identity. The idea that David Cameron touches upon is that current definitions of multiculturalism are out-of-date as they suggest separateness, when in fact it should be the basis of policies that aim to integrate society and asserts a sense of one national identity.
But that is David Cameron’s view of multiculturalism. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a broad definition stating it is “the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported”. So is multiculturalism simply the acceptance of societal and cultural differences and its accommodation rather than their integration as Cameron suggests it? ‘Tolerance’ and ‘integration’ are two terms that are at separate ends of the spectrum of community values. One has the ‘live and let live’ motto attached to it while the other instills a sense of ‘it doesn’t matter if you’re Christian, Muslim, or Jew, you are British’. But neither mindset exists in today’s world.
In essence Cameron is saying that tolerance of many cultures, as the core approach of reaching a state of multiculturalism in the past, is wrong because any society and any state requires a strong element of shared values if it is to function well and in this he is correct. But one has to question whether there is enough room in not only British society but in any society around the world for societal diversity to evolve into a common accepted culture. Then one has to consider that there are as many cultures in society as there are people- no one person shares the same values and ideals. Cameron states British culture as having ‘muscular liberalism’, and factoring in that individual freedom of choice is an important notion.
Is it possible to create the kind of pluralism that Cameron wants without creating a chaotic society? Will it bring everlasting peace? Trying to integrate society under the banner of multiculturalism is a bold move by the British Prime Minister, but one wonders if he has thought it through. Ultimately his task lies in somehow linking together disparities of religion and individualism to create a ‘multiculturalist society’ — a very different problem indeed.
