Multiculturalism

Adam of The Metropolis Times and I are fellow blogspiriter. I’ve long enjoyed his blogs, and have recently commented favorably on his presentation of an ACLU civil rights video. Likewise, his recent post on Atheist Activist tied into my decrying of secularist destruction of war memorials..

His most recent post caused me to write a comment that rapidly became post-length. So I am presenting it here instead of its original home in his thread.

  • The doctrine of cultural equality is rare
  • The doctrine of cultural equality is rare
  • Multiculturalism means Classical Liberalism

I cannot emphasize how wrong it is. The belief that Multiculturalism — which is essentially a profession of rights of collectives or third-generation human rights is anything like traditional human rights is dangerous naive. Not “wrong” as such, but fundamentally misinformed. It is a dangerous misunderstanding of an actual movement.


Adam says, “I’ve only met one person in my entire life who seemed to believe that, my freshman Cultural Anthropology professor. While this sort of radical existentialism…” There is nothing radically existential about the belief.

Modern multiculturalism traces its intellectual foundation to Emil Durkheim. It describes culture as a superorganism that exists essentially independent of the people who compose it. Durkehim wrote that “Omni cultura ex cultura” that all social effects are entirely created by social causes. In other words, a culture is in no way intelliglbe from the perspective of its members. That NO individual level of analysis is IN ANY WAY meaningful to society. To emphaize; a Durkheimist would say “Something happens because individuals want….” is meaningless.

(This is separate — and more eery — than the Marxist view than Man and Society are Intellectually Coterminous. Marx believed that Man and Society both have the same species-nature. Durkheim would say that the species-nature of Man has no bearing on the species-nature.)

From Durkheim’s cleaving of Man and Society, one now approaches how to judge cultures. But what standard should one use? The human body is like a super-organism to the cells that contain it, but what sane humanist would judge a man by the well-being of his cells. Indeed, what is well-being? A cell that doesn’t die may be all well and good for itself, but it is a cancer to the Man.

In the same way, judging a culture by the way it treats individuals is meaningless. At this point, most multiculturalists do for Culture what the northern enlightenment thinkers did for Man — declare them fundamentally equal.

Adam’s statement that

What most so-called evil multiculturalists actually believe is that individual rights and liberties are universal to all cultures and peoples of the world, equally.

is thus the reverse of what multiculturalists actually believe. Indeed, Adam is defining multiculturalism as a type of monoculturalism — a belief that there exists one and only one set of “individual rights and liberties [that are] universal”.

Likewise incorrect is Adam’s claim that this multiculturalism has not done much harm, or as he says multiculturalism has “hardly taken hold of any significant part of American society.” If I had needed any more proof that this was incorrect, I got it from my readings in evolutionary politics. Scientists have been denounced, had research banned, and received death threats from campus multiculturalists enraged by evolution’s implication of a Universal Human Nature (with its implication of a Universal Human Metaculture).

The harm is even greater than that. If all cultures are equal, then a culture which taboos genetically modified food (and thus leads to starvation and malnutrition) has a right to prohibit its members by law from preventing that sort of food. If all cultures are equal, then attempts to change the nature of some culture (to improve the lives of citizens) is a form of imperialism or maltreatment

Multiculturalism is an illiberal belief in the fundamental equality of cultures. It is an inhuman, destructive creed that is powerful in certain niches such as academia.

0 thoughts on “Multiculturalism”

  1. Right, academic multiculturalism is morally bankrupt, a charge they would use as a badge of honor. Most of my post was about so-called “multiculturalists” who are labeled that way because of openess to non-political practices from other cultures, such as food and drink.

    Specifically, the post was inspired by a private argument where I was accused of being a multiculturalist and communist because I didn't have a problem with Mexican-Americans eating tacos and playing Mexican music during a 4th of July festival in Texas.

  2. Adam, glad we agree! 🙂

    I think we both believe in the melting pot — that America is a dynamic society — an assimilation machine. America's successful ability to run as a highly-fit complex adaptive system is breathtaking.

    (And on Mexican celebrations… the most formal and respectful I have ever seen anyone on a public holiday are Mexican laborers. It is very easy for someone born in this wonderful country to take it for granted. That which is easily obtained is easily ignored. But immigrants, who worked to be here and work to stay here, are often more grateful.)

  3. The ideas and people behind “multiculturalism” scare me. I saw them first close up as a young undergraduate at a liberal university. I understand the so-called multiculturalists are after.

    Multiculturalism is not Classical Liberalism.

    Nor is eating a taco or Chinese food (which I have just order out for dinner) multiculturalism.

    At is core, multiculturalism is about moral equivalency between cultures (an amoral position), and equality of outcomes for groups, not equality of opportunity for individual (not a classical liberal point of view). Be very clear, running a multicultural system requires a group or network of enlightened (self-designated) officials to administer it and verify compliance. Strong penalties for non-compliance will be needed too. The words I am using should appear to be shadows of other words heard in history.

    As for my university experience, I was present when professors and administrators openly discussed strategies “to get” those that opposed their multicultural programs. By “oppose” I mean speak out against (verbally or in print). See, that would be considered hate speech (hate speech would not be considered free speech, US Constitution be dammed). I was one of a few students on the Student Conduct Policy Board. The university came within a whisker of passing draconian rules (and penalties) that no or few student would have been able to financially challenge. I was able to get it voted down by one vote. The next step by the multiculturalists was to try to reduce the number of students on the board (the students had voted unanimously against the early measure) at a later meeting that would not have been heavily attended. I got wind of the agenda ahead of time and rounded up all my fellow student reps to attend. The multiculturalists could count votes, so they tried to table the matter (for a later meeting when they might have a majority). I had my copy of Robert's and opposed that. Then I got the measure voted down.

    That was 20 years ago. The so-called multiculturalists have been slowly working at this. They are in it for the long haul. Each compromise with them gets them closer to their goals.

  4. Purpleslog,

    Thank you for your scary tale of multiculturalism. I'd be honored and delighted if you would tell more of this, either here or at your blog.

    Multiculturalists and other academics are often deried as radicals who became the establishment, but they are best scene as a 4GW organization that is conducting phase IV operations within academia. Like the Christians in ancient Rome, they are seizing the levers of power to spread their message.

    (Unlike the Christians their message is essentially anti-life, but that's neither here nor there from an operations perspective.)

    Your story shows the antidemocratic and illiberal attempts by the Academic Left to consolidate their hold. They also attempt to spread their beliefs. This must be stopped. They must be rolled back.

    It is my own experiences — which are nothing compared to yours — which led me to my most painful flip-flop as a blogger: I once believed that academic tenure is worth fighting for. [1] I now believed, at least in the social sciencies and humanities, it is worth destroying.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/22/academic_tenure_is_worth_fighting_for_intellectual_property.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *