luni, 25 iulie 2011

Despre multiculturalism...

... am citit un articol foarte interesant pe Wikipedia:

Multiculturalism and Islam

Mi-a atras atentia o chestie foarte interesanta. Iata ce arata printre altele:

"Hostility towards Muslims
A survey showed that 18% in Britain think that "a large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense of loyalty to this country and are prepared to condone or even carry out acts of terrorism".[9] A TNS/Global poll showed that 79% in Britain would feel "uncomfortable living next to a Muslim".[10] There have also been notable tensions in Britain between established Muslim communities and newly-arrived Eastern European immigrants.[11] A major attitude survey of teenagers in Flanders showed that 75% refuse to have a relationship with a black person, a Muslim, or an immigrant. Half want all immigration stopped, and 41% say they distrust anyone from another ethnic background.[12]British cabinet ministers had been criticized in October 2006 for helping to "unleash a public anti-Muslim backlash" in the United Kingdom by blaming the Muslim community over issues of integration despite a study commissioned by the Home Office on white and Asian-Muslim youths demonstrating "White youths are more likely to believe they are superior to those from other races, and their attitudes are more of a barrier to integration than those of Muslims".[13][14] A Europe-wide survey by Gallup in May 2009 also found that the Muslim communities in Britain, Germany and France felt more patriotic towards those countries compared to the general populations as a whole,[15][16] while another survey found that Muslims supported the role of Christianity in British life more so than Christians themselves.[17]"
Articole foarte interesante din Wikipedia despre multiculturalism - aici si aici. Interesante sunt criticile aduse multiculturalismului. O sa selectez cateva. Iata, spre exemplu, in SUA:
"Lawrence Auster, another conservative critic of multiculturalism, has argued that although multiculturalism is meant to promote the value of each culture, the reality is that its real tendency has been to undermine America's traditional majority culture. In Auster's view, multiculturalism has tended to "downgrade our national culture while raising the status and power of other cultures."He writes:
The formal meaning of “diversity,” “cultural equity,” “gorgeous mosaic” and so on is a society in which many different cultures will live together in perfect equality and peace (i.e., a society that has never existed and never will exist); the real meaning of these slogans is that the power of the existing mainstream society to determine its own destiny shall be drastically reduced while the power of other groups, formerly marginal or external to that society, will be increased. In other words the U.S. must, in the name of diversity, abandon its particularity while the very groups making that demand shall hold on to theirs.[11]According to Auster:
Since multiculturalism claims to stand for the sanctity and worth of each culture, the discovery that its real tendency is to dismantle the existing, European-based culture of the United States should have instantly discredited it.[12]"
Dar si:
"Diversity and Social TrustHarvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how diversity affects social trust.[17] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam.[18] In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that
[W]e hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.[17]Ethologist Frank Salter writes:
Relatively homogeneous societies invest more in public goods, indicating a higher level of public altruism. For example, the degree of ethnic homogeneity correlates with the government's share of gross domestic product as well as the average wealth of citizens. Case studies of the United States...find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure..... A recent multi-city study of municipal spending on public goods in the United States found that ethnically or racially diverse cities spend a smaller portion of their budgets and less per capita on public services than do the more homogenous cities.[19]"
Sa vedem ce critici sunt aduse multiculturalismului in Europa:

The NetherlandsMain article: Multiculturalism in the NetherlandsLegal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book The Philosophy of Human Rights.[51] Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: Western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-Western culture and values.[citation needed] They are the product of the Enlightenment. Cliteur sees non-Western cultures not as merely different but as anachronistic. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants.[citation needed] Cliteur lists infanticidetortureslavery, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangsfemale genital cutting, discrimination by immigrants, suttee, and the death penalty. Cliteur compares multiculturalism to the moral acceptance of AuschwitzStalinPol Pot and the Ku Klux Klan.[citation needed][edit]

United KingdomWith considerable migration after the Second World War making the UK an increasingly ethnically and racially diverse state, race relationspolicies have been developed that broadly reflect the principles of multiculturalism, although there is no official national commitment to the concept.[52][53][54] This model has faced criticism on the grounds that it has failed to sufficiently promote social integration,[55][56][57] although some commentators have questioned the dichotomy between diversity and integration that this critique presumes.[56] It has been argued that the UK government has since 2001, moved away from policy characterised by multiculturalism and towards the assimilation of minority communities.[58]Opposition has grown to state sponsored multicultural policies, with some believing that it has been a costly failure.[59][60][61][62] Critics of the policy come from many parts of British society. There is now a debate in the UK over whether explicit multiculturalism and "social cohesion and inclusion" are in fact mutually exclusive.[63] In the wake of the July 7 Bombings 2005 David Davis, the opposition Conservative shadow home secretary, called on the government to scrap its "outdated" policy of multiculturalism.[64][65] The British columnist Leo Mckinstry said of multiculturalism, "Britain is now governed by a suicide cult bent on wiping out any last vestige of nationhood" and called it a "profoundly disturbing social experiment".[66] The head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who has called for an official end to multicultural policy and has criticised "politically correct liberals for their “misguided” pandering to the ethnic lobby".[67]In the May 2004 edition of Prospect Magazine, the editor David Goodhart temporarily couched the debate on multiculturalism in terms of whether a modern welfare state and a "good society" is sustainable as its citizens become increasingly diverse.[68] In November 2005 John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, stated, "Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me: let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains."[69] The Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali was also critical, calling for the Church to regain a prominent position in public life and blaming the "newfangled and insecurely founded doctrine of multiculturalism" for entrenching the segregation of communities.[70]Whilst minority cultures are allowed to remain distinct, British culture and traditions are sometimes perceived as exclusive and adapted accordingly, often without the consent of the local population.[citation needed] Recent examples include the cancellation of public fires[who?][71](associated with Guy Fawkes Night), which the local council said was for environmental reasons only, but critics believed multiculturalism played a part. Also, there was the proposed "multicultural reinterpretation" of the York Mystery Plays[72] and the Birmingham "Winterval"[73]controversy.
In August 2006, the community and local government secretary Ruth Kelly made a speech perceived as signalling the end of multiculturalism as official policy.[74] In November 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that Britain has certain "essential values" and that these are a "duty". He did not reject multiculturalism outright, but he included British heritage among the essential values:[75]"When it comes to our essential values — belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage — then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common.
          New Labour and multiculturalism
Renewed controversy on the subject came to the fore when Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Jack StrawTony Blair and David Blunkett— claimed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing mass immigration into Britain, to "change the face of Britain forever".
According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. Neather went on to say that “the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.[76][77]This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[78] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism for political ends.
In February 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will be no longer be state policy.[79] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.[80]"
Dar sa vedem ce spun si suporterii multiculturalismului: 
"Support for multiculturalismMulticulturalism is seen by its supporters as a fairer system that allows people to truly express who they are within a society, that is more tolerant and that adapts better to social issues.[6] They argue that culture is not one definable thing based on one race or religion, but rather the result of multiple factors that change as the world changes.
Historically, support for modern multiculturalism stems from the changes in Western societies after World War II, in what Susanne Wessendorf calls the "human rights revolution", in which the horrors of institutionalized racism and ethnic cleansing became almost impossible to ignore in the wake of the Holocaust; with the collapse of the European colonial system, as colonized nations in Africa and Asiasuccessfully fought for their independence and pointed out the racist underpinnings of the colonial system; and, in the United States in particular, with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, which criticized ideals of assimilation that often led to prejudices against those who did not act according to Anglo-American standards and which led to the development of academic ethnic studies programs as a way to counteract the neglect of contributions by racial minorities in classrooms.[7][8] As this history shows, multiculturalism in Western countries was seen as a useful set of strategies to combat racism, to protect minority communities of all types, and to undo policies that had prevented minorities from having full access to the opportunities for freedom and equality promised by the liberalism that has been the hallmark of Western societies since the Age of Enlightenment.
C. James Trotman argues that multiculturalism is valuable because it "uses several disciplines to highlight neglected aspects of our social history, particularly the histories of women and minorities [...and] promotes respect for the dignity of the lives and voices of the forgotten. By closing gaps, by raising consciousness about the past, multiculturalism tries to restore a sense of wholeness in a postmodern era that fragments human life and thought."[9]Tariq Modood argues that in the early years of the 21st Century, multiculturalism "is most timely and necessary, and [...] we need more not less", since it is "the form of integration" that (1) best fits the ideal of egalitarianism, (2) has "the best chance of succeeding" in the "post-9/11, post 7/7" world, and (3) has remained "moderate [and] pragmatic".[10]Bhikhu Parekh counters what he sees as the tendencies to equate multiculturalism with racial minorities "demanding special rights" and to see it as promoting a "thinly veiled racis[m]". Instead, he argues that multiculturalism is in fact "not about minorities" but "is about the proper terms of relationship between different cultural communities", which means that the standards by which the communities resolve their differences, e.g., "the principles of justice" must not come from only one of the cultures but must come "through an open and equal dialogue between them."[11]"
Daca Europa este policulturala, cum si este, atunci multiculturalismul ar trebui sa fie potrivit pentru o Uniune Europeana. Pentru ca este destul de clar ca Uniunea Europeana nu poate fi monoculturala (contrazice realitatea). De altfel Wikipedia si spune:

"Historically, Europe has always been polycultural—a mixture of Latin, Slavic, Germanic, Uralic and Celtic cultures influenced by the importation of Hebraic, Hellenic and Muslim belief systems; although the continent was supposedly unified by the super-position of Roman Catholic Christianity, it is accepted that geographic and cultural differences continued from antiquity into the modern age."
Cred ca se poate vorbi de o cultura comuna totusi in Europa, in ciuda acestui policulturalism. Pentru ca exista trasaturi comune si aspiratii comune, in ciuda diferentelor. Spre exemplu sa luam un lucru banal: moda. Este clar ca felul in care se imbraca europenii este asemanator. In schimb nu e asemanator cu felul in care se imbraca oamenii in India sau Egipt. Deci exista diferentieri culturale, dar exista, pe de alta parte, si diferentieri culturale majore. Evident ca, spre exemplu, un flux mare de emigranti musulmani aduce si o alta cultura in Europa, foarte diferita de cultura europeana, de felul in care privesc lucrurile oamenii de aici, alte conceptii, alta religie, alt mod si filozofie de viata. Iar incompatibilitatile incep sa-si spuna cuvantul. Insa aceste incompatibilitati n-ar trebui sa fie o baza de plecare pentru promovarea intolerantei. Din pacate aceasta intoleranta exista in Europa iar atentatele de la Oslo ne arata tocmai asa ceva. Tocmai aceasta intoleranta ar trebui sa fie atenuata, daca nu eliminata cu totul. O reactie la diferentele culturale este normal sa existe. Dar nu e normal ca pornind de la aceste diferente culturale sa inceapa sa fie promovata intoleranta fata de altii de alta cultura, religie sau rasa, numai pentru faptul ca acestea sunt diferite de cele de aici.
De ce se ridica tocmai acum aceasta problema? De ce tocmai acum multiculturalismul este un esec in Europa? Pana acum nu a fost un esec...? Pana acum multe tari europene au primit emigranti musulmani si nu a fost o problema. S-ar putea sa fie o reactie la terorismul de tip islamic, dar asta nu inseamna ca toti musulmanii ar fi teroristi, iar o astfel de reactie n-ar trebui sa conduca la generalizari de felul acesta. Brusc, musulmanii au devenit o problema, imigrantii au devenit o problema. O alta cauza ar putea fi criza economica actuala, care afecteaza Europa si care ar putea sa conduca la astfel de sentimente, pe un fond de somaj, reducere drastica de cheltuieli ce afecteaza populatia. Dar nici aceasta criza nu justifica intocmai o astfel de atitudine. De unde se vede ca aceasta atitudine este, mai degraba, una politica, pentru un vot in plus. Ceea ce ma deranjeaza pe mine la criticile aduse multiculturalismului este intoleranta, care, daca e promovata in felul acesta, ar putea avea consecinte periculoase. Si asta in conditiile in care multiculturalismul a fost sustinut pana acum cu caldura.
Se vorbeste despre integrare. Spre exemplu integrarea unui musulman intr-o tara europeana, deci o tara cu o cu totul alta religie decat a sa. Aici ar trebui sa vedem ce optiuni ar avea cetateanul musulman, astfel incat sa se integreze complet. Tarile musulmane sunt profund religioase, atunci si el este un om religios, conform culturii din tara sa. Lucrul asta il defineste intr-un anumit fel din punct de vedere spiritual. Si atunci el ar avea doua optiuni: sa renunte la religia sa si sa devina ateu sau, a doua optiune, sa isi schimbe religia in religia dominanta (sau in una din religiile) din tara respectiva. Or, e clar ca astfel de optiuni sunt inacceptabile pentru el. Si nici nu poti sa-l constrangi sa faca asta, deoarece in acest caz s-ar incalca flagrant Drepturile Omului, libertatea de constiinta. Dar ar insemna si promovarea in societate a ateismului, lucru, iarasi, daunator.  De aceea integrarea sa ar trebui facuta altfel. Adica bazata pe alte valori, si anume pe valori laice, ceea ce nu inseamna ca el ar trebui sa renunte la religia sa musulmana, pentru ca treaba asta ar fi treaba lui personala si a nimanui altcuiva. Bineinteles, ar avea dreptul sa aiba locase de cult conform religiei sale. Iar in felul acesta s-ar putea impaca, dupa cum spune romanul, "capra si varza". Altmineri cum s-ar putea sa fie aduse lucrurile la un numitor comun? Si asta atata vreme cat el e de religie diferita de ceea ce e aici, lucru ce conduce catre dezbinare. Daca s-ar proceda asa, in conditiile in care sunt milioane de musulmani in Europa, multiculturalismul, apropo de Islam, ar putea fi o reusita. Renuntarea la multiculturalism, in conditiile in care exista o numeroasa populatie straina in Europa, stabilita aici, dar chiar si diferente culturale in sanul Europei, cum am aratat mai sus, nu mi se pare a fi lucrul cel mai potrivit, asta ca sa spun elegant. Dar poate ca e mai bine s-o spun de-a dreptul: mi se pare o prostie. Sustinut cu caldura pana acum, multiculturalismul a condus spre o asemenea situatie: au venit aici multi emigranti straini, multi dintre ei fiind musulmani. Problemele privind integrarea sunt, in general vorbind, de durata. Dar, pe de alta parte, de ce sa nu ne punem intrebarea daca politicile si valorile privind modul in care ar trebui sa se realizeze aceasta integrare au fost, cel putin pana acum, cele mai potrivite. Este clar ca nu se poate sustine o integrare fortata. Dar poate ca aceste politici ar putea fi perfectionate, tocmai pentru ca sa duca la o mai buna integrare a acestor oameni in Europa. In acest sens ar trebui intensificat dialogul intre culturi, tocmai pentru a se ajunge la un acelasi numitor.
Am auzit o chestie interesanta. In Franta...Un tanar francez si o tanara de religie musulmana. S-au iubit si au vrut sa se casatoreasca. Parintii fetei nu au fost de acord decat daca tanarul ar trece la religia musulmana. Se pare ca a iubit-o foarte tare, pentru ca a facut lucrul asta. Dar ar fi putut sa n-o faca! Problema, in conditiile in care ai o numeroasa populatie musulmana in Europa, deci de religie diferita de ceea ce exista aici ar fi urmatoarea: ar trebui religia sa influenteze atat de mult relatiile sociale? Sau: relatiile sociale ar trebui intemeiate pe baze exclusiv religioase? Dar, desigur, problema ar putea fi pusa si la modul general. Iar musulmanii care s-au stabilit si traiesc aici ar trebui sa inteleaga ca modul asta de a pune problema nu este tocmai cel mai potrivit. In cazul asta, n-ar trebui sa se casatoreasca decat un protestant cu o protestanta, un catolic cu o catolica, un ortodox cu o ortodoxa, si atunci unde ajungem in felul acesta...? Putem sa ajungem la tragedii si am sa va spun un astfel de scenariu: un protestant iubeste o catolica. Parintii fetei ar fi de acord sa se casatoreasca daca el ar trece la catolicism, parintii baiatului ar vrea ca fata sa devina protestanta. Si uite asa parintii se opun si, ca in Romeo si Julieta, se intampla o sinucidere din aceasta imposibila conciliere. Doamne fereste! Dar daca tratam relatiile sociale in aceasta maniera, de pe pozitii exclusivist religioase, se pot intampla si astfel de tragedii. De aceea si spun ca integrarea ar trebui sa fie bazata pe alte valori. Laice. Si in jurul acestor valori ar trebui sa se poarte si dialogul de care vorbeam mai sus. Luand exemplele de mai sus, un barbat si o femeie pot trai foarte bine impreuna, chiar daca sunt de religii diferite si fara ca vreunul din ei sa-si abjure credinta religioasa. Traiul bun intr-o casnicie il da in exclusivitate doar valorile religioase? Se casatoresc doi - el crestin si ea crestina - si, cu toate acestea, dupa doi ani divorteaza , atunci cum e?
Partea proasta e ca politica, in zilele noastre, a ajuns sa semene mai mult cu o goana dupa voturi. Iar lucrul asta incepe sa denatureze si sa deformeze totul. In loc sa se gaseasca solutii viabile la problemele cu care ne confruntam. A spune ca multiculturalismul e un esec nu inseamna ca dai solutii. Dar, in felul acesta se poate amplifica fenomenul extremist. Tocmai pentru ca nu se ofera nicio solutie, in schimb se pun tot felul de etichete (i s-a pus multiculturalismului eticheta "esec"!). In felul acesta, acesti oameni in loc sa ii lumineze pe altii nu fac altceva decat sa adanceasca si mai mult noaptea. Pentru voturi. Probabil. In orice caz, o astfel de atitudine nu mi se pare deloc potrivita. Iar daca treburile stau asa, vituperandu-se de la cel mai inalt nivel impotriva multiculturalismului, ba pardon, impotriva tolerantei, sa nu ne mire prea tare daca va avea loc intr-un viitor nu prea departat o recrudescenta a neo-nazismului in Europa.    

Niciun comentariu:

Trimiteți un comentariu