Some societies once thought of as being homogeneous are now being regarded as heterogeneous in character, as their heterogeneity is writ large in the demographics with the attendant advantages and challenges. So the time has come, the Walrus said to speak, and presumably write, of many things.
It's therefore not surprising that the question of "multiculturism" has become a hot-button topic that has far-reaching ramifications and will, I reckon, not go away anytime soon, especially as the spectre of austerity seems to cast a widening and ever menacing shadow on the international landscape.
Recently, 35-year-old Norwegian mass killer Anders Behring sought to rationalise his cold-blooded execution of 77 young, defenceless people as "a legitimate, if not praiseworthy, attempt" to abort the "multiculturalisation of Europe, in general and its Islamisation, in particular."
But I digress. I suppose that scholars and others at universities and other seats of learning speak and write about "multiculturism," according to their lights, politicians, who, talking from both sides of their mouths, I suppose, can't help seeking to extract whatever political mileage that they imagine can be derived from espousing some position or other which is deemed to enhance personal advancement or political prospects.
Even lunatic fringes of one sort or the other can be expected not to resist the temptation to exacerbate and/or exploit multicultural faultlines or create them where they don't already exist. It is, however, in my opinion, the common-not vulgar-people (ordinary folk and children-yes, children), at the grassroots level, in the communities, who, left to their own devices, tend to work out, unimpeded, their own differences and negotiate their own modi vivendi (ways of living together and coping with differences).
Calypsonian Black Stalin may have sung more wisely than he knew when he sang, "Sufferers doh know nothing 'bout race, nor who come in who place/what they really care 'bout is where the next meal coming from." Interestingly, and this may shock you, a fellow who attracted a non-ethnic following, the much heralded Tubal Uriah Butler, was once jailed right here (not by the colonial masters) for squatting somewhere in the forested area and both the then administration and the labour unions had to be publicly shamed into responding to Butler's plight, when he blurted out, at a labour public meeting at Woodford Square of all places, that many a day he didn't know where the next meal was coming from (his words). But that's just now "ancient historical trivia." So Black Stalin may not have been so wrong after all. Need I be more specific?
It's not unusual for "multiculturism" or "cultural-pluralism," as it might be called, to be exploited along certain fault lines and a sense of insecurity, marginalisation and alienation can be magnified and felt justified if there is a general perception that "accountability" and "transparency" are mere "buss words" to pull the wool over people's eyes, whereas the "allocation of public resources," to borrow the economic jargon, appears not to reflect a sensitivity to the criteria of efficiency, cost effectiveness and social equity.
In politics, there's that tiresome truism that perception can be as potent as reality and the coherence of a society can be put to hazard by a feeling of helplessness, when "government of the people, for the people, by the people" begins to look suspiciously like "government of politicians and friends, by politicians and friends, for politicians and friends." In fairness, one might mention that this state of affairs is not by any means unfamiliar. But same old same old, no can do.
Our perennial problem seems to be that, as far as our politicians are concerned, "a word to the wise never seems adequate," one literally has to pelt an entire encyclopedia in certain directions. There are inherent difficulties in managing the governance of a plural society but you'd never guess that our politicians (some, at least) consider political savoir-faire as a political asset.
Frank F Wong, referring to the US, said: "The inherent pluralism of American society, bred by the multiple immigrant origins of its people has avoided separatist anarchy through a larger universalise vision of human rights applying to all people regardless of religion or racial origin." Wong avers that "this larger vision was established in the Declaration of Independence and institutionalised in the Bill of Rights."
Incidentally, it took long and arduous struggle for the Negro to receive full constitutional protection and affirmation of his/her status as a full person. Ever heard of the Negro being three-fifths of a person or thereabout? There's also the perspective that, although "diversity" is written in the demographics, what is needed is "intercultural engagement" and a fuller understanding leading to universally shared high-minded objectives and not a sullen acceptance of differences that are simply tolerated or cynically manipulated.
