The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity

by H.E. Baber

Most literature on multiculturalism assumes, without argument or compelling empirical evidence, that immigrants and members of ethnic minorities prefer to identify with their ancestral cultures. According to the received view, multiculturalism benefits ethnic minorities, who want to maintain distinct cultures and keep to themselves. And it protects them from the pressure to assimilate to the majority culture.Philosopher H. E. Baber scrutinizes these assumptions in this critique of the notion of multiculturalism. Baber asks whether it could be that many, or even most, members of ethnic minorities want to shed their ethnic identities and assimilate to the dominant culture. She suggests that multiculturalism imposes ethnic scripts on minorities and thus locks them out of the opportunity to assimilate. In effect, it becomes a form of ethnic stereotyping and discrimination. Multiculturalism, when transformed into an ideology as it often is, benefits cultural preservationists at the expense of members of ethnic minorities who wish to assimilate-arguably the majority. Perversely, it then labels those who would resist such stereotyping as atypical, inauthentic, or even self-hating. Baber argues that liberals, or anyone who favors the expansion of individual liberty, should reject a multiculturalism that restricts personal freedom by classifying and identifying people on the basis of unchosen characteristics such as ancestry and appearance. Like all Americans, ethnic minorities should be encouraged to "invent themselves," to affiliate with groups of their own choosing and be identified as they wish.

Genres: Nonfiction

260 pages

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[John Reis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an insightful book and a foolish one. Baber asks some good questions which devastate the concept of multiculturalism, notable: do people like their culture? And does the desire to assimilate prove low self-esteem or self-hatred? The author shows(p. 170) that advocates of cultural identity do more damage to the culture in question by setting assimilationists/integrationists against preservationists than it does to the larger culture. The preservationists/
Multiculturalists do find work from their concerns. They make their living promoting the tribe. She does not bring up the Indian reservation problem that has existed for more than a century. She claims that the identity politics movement of the Sixties and Seventies was a reaction to the conservatives wrapping themselves in the flag during the Vietnam War. This is fantasy on her part. The flag-waving came after the protest movement was in full bloom. And that movement was self-serving. Petulant upper middle class white college students did not want to do something they did not want to do. Why should they? Nothing had been demanded of them by their parents. Why should anything change?

She does see that the notion of group rights helps some while hurting others. She makes no note of the fact that the earlier liberal position was that small municipalities and enclaves could not guarantee rights, that they must be controlled by the federal government and courts.

She does look at the problem of the second generation radical for the home culture. This must be dealt with by the parents. My German Great-grandmother refused to speak German to her grandchildren. Is this the right policy?

She advocates coercive governmental policies—affirmative action, busing, etc…-- because the self-esteem movement is foolish and failed. Also, it was cheap. She argues for a kind of forced integration or acceptance on the part of white culture. She does not seem to demand anything of the minority cultures. She does not look at Indians and Orientals—Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese or Japanese—all of whom do not fit her mold.

She trumpets affirmative action yet, makes no attempt to respond to its critics that it is patronizing, promotes incompetence and is unfair. She wants more of it.

Everyone who is against multiculturalism is racist and sexist except her(p. 242) and every conservative who argued her theses before her was only rehearsing it..

I thought that multiculturalism was a theoretical support for affirmative action. She thinks it replaced something wonderful: affirmative action.

She did not make her case to me.

[Kathleen O'Neal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was greatly impressed with book when I first read it and still agree with many of its claims. That said, reflecting on it now I realize that some of its arguments (such as the point it makes about hijab and African-American women's hair) are bizarre and at times even racist. At this point I look at this book as an artifact of my intellectual development circa the time I was twenty or so. I doubt I would be as impressed reading it for the first time today.

[Patricia Luce Chapman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book discusses the currently chic "multiculturalist salad bowl," favoring the melting pot approach which "frees individuals to affiliate with groups of their own choosing and to be identified as they wish." With which I agree.

The book presents original thinking and concepts from the liberal point of view and makes fascinating non-pedantic reading.