|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on November 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM|
The Nation-State is Dying, and Multiculturalism isn't Working. What Now?
The ideal of the nation-state -- that there should be a state for each nation, and that each nation should have a state -- has been on life-support for a while now, and its cousin, monoculturalism, is being ravaged by globalization. Affluent societies the world over are being flooded with immigrants and refugees of greatly differring physical appearances, philosophies, languages, etc. How can a monocultural state survive in such a climate? By closing off immigration? (Isolationistic) Forcing immigrants to marry natives? (An old Chinese policy. Could work, but at the cost of what liberties? Is there a better way to go about this?) Throwing those not of the majority into concentration-camps? (What do you think we are? Fascists? And why would this ever be a good idea?) What even is monoculturalism? (As in, what aspects of "culture" ought to be shared? How homogenous need a society be? What good is a near-perfectly homogenous society, anyway?) Even if you can sustain it, is it worth the effort to so vehemently resist the tides of change? Enforced monoculturalism avoids ethnic tensions by deliberately creating them.
And then we have multiculturalism, the bastard child of colonial views of race and Marxist theories of class-conflict. Multiculturalism is a hideous beast protected by political correctness and the unrealisticness of monoculturalism in the face of a heterogenous society. Multiculturalism, first-off, identifies race with culture. It uses unscientific divisions left over from the castas of the colonial era to, intentionally or not, artificially strengthen self-segregation among communities, while being convinced that it's the solution to the very segregation it encourages. Ethnic groups by default tend to prefer endogamy (marrying within their community) to exogamy (marrying outside of it). By tossing people into predefined groups and seeing them as immutable on pain of being called an undesirable term ("racist", in this case), you gradually create in the culture a view that these divisions are and must continue to be real. People think of whites vs Asians vs blacks vs whatever, and they stereotype along those lines. These stereotypes do little to ease the in-built tendency towards endogamy, and as people gradually alienate themselves from other "races", they strengthen this tendency. I'm not saying that multiculturalism has *created* this climate; it existed well-beforehand. But it has done absolutely nothing to remedy this issue, instead having stayed the course -- but worse than simply keeping on as before, multiculturalism has managed to convince itself that it is doing the opposite.
With endogamy already a basic tendency, and with society reinforcing it, you end up creating several nations in one state. These different nations, having grown up in different environments, do not have a great understanding of each other; but the obsession with identity politics prevents people of other groups from freely describing their perceptions as part of an open dialogue, because somehow their perspective as the out-group is invalid, and trying to express it makes them a racist. As time goes on, the nations grow increasingly greater and more distant, and this creates even more friction within the society. Each group feels oppressed by another, especially by the majority; and their shared history, which is theirs alone, and their focus on identity politics, allows for an endless rehashing of centuries-old conflicts. Trust within the society diminishes. Groups grow increasingly suspicious of each other, and confirmation bias gradually inflames and connects unrelated incidents.
And then, of course, you have the obsession with the majority-minority dialectic, as if it's some universal thing. And even in places where the "majority" is the minority or simply a plurality, it's still considered the "majority". What's going on here? That's not scientific in the least! And it creates an inherent feeling that somehow the "majority" is the favoured group -- something it may well be; but this needn't be the case (and, indeed, there are many, many cases where the minority ethnic group has the majority prestige). And then we have all that affirmative action crap. So the way to end racism is to deliberately create priviliges bestowed by birth? Aren't you creating a caste-system? (The answer is, 'yes', you are creating a caste-system.)
And going back to the terrible vocabulary we're using for this stuff, what is a mutt or uncommoner to do? For example: "Blacks" who are lighter-skinned being ostracized or considered not black enough by one community, and being preferred by another, but never really fitting into any; or the public's not conceiving of non-standard mixtures, such as people who are part-black and part-Amerindian. How the heck is this kind of vocab going to scale with the amount of miscegenation we've got destined in our future?
So how do we solve these problems? For starters, we need an open dialogue, and this is something we can't easily have in a culture where talking openly about ethnicity is seen as racist. Now, when I say "open", I don't mean going around and waving racial slurs and such around; I mean civilized talks for the purposes of mutual understanding, for bridging the disconnects between different groups, for helping them to understand each other -- intercultural, interfaith, etc. talks. And we need policies designed to end self-segregation, and I mean self-segregation in virtually every major demographic way. One of the first thoughts to my mind regarding this is neighbourhood ethnic, class, religion, etc. quotas; but in order to do this in a truly meaningful manner, we've got to replace the parlance of multiculturalism with scientific parlance, and we have to find ways to do this in which we don't pigeonhole people into particular nations, as multiculturalism does, or destroy people's freedom of choice, as a command-economy does. A good quota system ought to help dramatically with the issue of ethnic enclaves, and hopefully will encourage miscegenation, something which is good for a couple reasons, those being: (1) hybrid vigour (mutts are fitter than pure-breds), and (2) it blends everyone's racial histories together, thus easing a serious point of friction within ethnically heterogenous societies.
Essentially, we need to create a melting-pot society with no end-goal culture in mind -- an endlessly melting melting-pot.
What prompted me to write this piece?
In my readings, I happened upon the term "interculturalism", which strikes me as showing a good deal of promise. As is the usual fashion forme, I am yet hesitant to directly identify with it; but it seems to share a decent amount in common with me, regarding these issues. This was my major impetus for these writings, although the bad taste I'm getting in my mouth over all the racial shit going on in the USA right now certainly contributed.
A few years ago, when Theodia was joining I believe the OAM, our monocultural policies came under fire, and I wrote a piece detailing the problems with multiculturalism and the advantages of monoculturalism; but, at the time, I was not as aware of globalization to the extent that I am now, and I was very much invested into the ideal of the nation-state and self-determination of ethnic groups. Although monoculturalism is a viable strategy in monocultural societies, such as the Japan and S. Korea of today, it is a very difficult thing to work with as soon as you start having to govern over large numbers of foreign peoples, a situation which is virtually inevitable for any micronation that ever manages to gain true de facto sovereignty and desires to depend heavily upon immigration. But you can't sequester these peoples, as multiculturalism would have you do; you have to encourage them to mix, and you have to create open dialogues between them to increase understanding; it's the best means we have at the moment for keeping the gears of heterogenous societies grinding.
My apologies if this post is not particularly florid or academic in tone; it is quite late at the moment, and I was largely writing this to get thoughts out of my head. As this has now been done, I shall shortly retire. Good night.
EDIT: After re-reading this, and noting its length and potential to spark an interesting discussion, I have decided to post it for the MicroWiki community to disect, in spite of my use of vulgarity.