Social Issues With Multiculturalism

Social Issues With MulticulturalismWhat are the main sociological issues raised by the estimate of a multi-cultural golf-club?Multiculturalism is non well-nigh difference and identity per se but about those that are embedded in and sustained by finishing (Parekh, 20002). Despite the fact that most countries instantly are culturally diverse, it would be impossible to discuss the main sociological issues raised by the idea of a multicultural society without explaining first, what is the meaning of culture itself? The most common definition of culture refers to a complex entity which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, customs and habits acquired by members of a society. Claire Alexander sees culture as a set of traditions and beliefs coupled to ethnicity and common origins which led to the realisation that culture is not a fixed set of beliefs, but it is made and unmade in daily life. (1996)The query of multiculturalism is not a recent topic for debate since it has been pres ent in the political life of European countries since 1945, year that does not only mark the back earthly concern War but also the beginning of an era of concerns and changes. The main issues raised by this matter refer to immigration, delegation of part and growing numbers of political refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, further problems go forth concerning corporate and political rights, liberal ideas, identity, and item-by-item liberty. (Rex, 2003)Furthermore, Kymlicka suggests that the mixture of cultures we are experiencing today has led to a conflict between majorities and minorities oer matters such(prenominal) as delivery, autonomy, political representation, and national identity (1996). He also argues that this, mainly affects democraciesattempts to create liberal democratic institutions are being undermined by red nationalist conflicts volatile dis setes oer the rights of immigrants, autochthonic peoples, and other cultural minorities are throwing into question m any an(prenominal) of the assumptions which have governed political life for decades (1996 2)Until recently, multiculturalism was seen by politicians and monarchs as a positive trait of modern and nation-states. However, this perception changed due to ethnic conflicts within nations such as the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia or the riots in the joined Kingdom between Asians and native British citizens. In the past few years, many philosophers and social scientists have taken an interest into the idea of cultural miscellanea and tried to define the image of a liberal society, answer the question whether individual rights should be expanded to groups and solve the problem of recognition which appeared it implied the denial of individual rights in the first place. (Rex, 2003)On this matter, Charles Taylor argues that in fact, recognition is an essential component of the concept of rights and individuals could be recognised as part of a group (1994). In order to expand his argument, he goes as far back as the collapse of social hierarchies and the ancient regime and states the common element that constitutes both a hierarchy and a democratic society. He claims that the ancient hierarchies were based on the notion of honour which even though it was a matter of choice, it defined the individuals of the society the term we use today is dignity. On the other hand, Taylor states that recognition has acquired a different meaning with the new understanding of individual identity that emerged at the suppress of the eighteenth century. This new idea focused on the privileged voice of the individual and on the concept of authenticity on the original view, the inner voice was important because it tells us what the right thing to do is being in touch with our moral feelings matter here, as a means to the end of acting rightly (199428) He also argues that identity is necessarily corporate and that cultural rights cannot be enjoyed by individuals alone because they are coll ective by nature. However, Taylors position collides with the liberal tradition which is based on the idea of individual freedom and the neutrality.According to Henri Giordan, the pillar of the modern society is fighting for individual freedom rather than the traditional structures of societies. Thus, the progress of civilizations was reflected in the freedom of speech and press, liberty to gather political parties and vote, concepts which defined human rights that in Pareks view represent a great historical achievement (2006 17) Furthermore, he explains thatfor the first time in history (human rights) provide a universally accessible moral and political language in which to articulate our dual-lane concerns and differences. In so doing it builds moral bonds between human beings in different parts of the world and helps create an awareness of our shared humanity. (200617)Nonethe slight, Parekh suggests that human rights should follow three conditionsfirstly, they should be totally related to and indispensable for a life of dignity secondly, they should be universal or rather universalizable in the dual sense that all human beings are entitled to claim them and that this claim extends to all societies thirdly, human rights should be widely accepted as such by a cross-cultural consensus. (200625)In order to sustain this point of view, Kymlicka states that minority rights are inseparable from human rights and mentions UNESCOthe defence of cultural diversity is an good imperative inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples. Cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, which are universal, indivisible and interdependent. (UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001)However, the rise of democracy was brutally interrupted by the First and Second World War. National identity became a threat for ide ologies such as fascism and Nazism which led to a tragic outcome (Kym1icka, 1992). Some minorities were exterminated, either by expulsion or by genocide while other minorities were assimilated and force to adopt the language, customs and religion of the majority group and were denied political rights. It became evident at the end of the Second World War that a different approach to minorities rights was necessary and attempts were made to redistribute collective rights to individuals rather than granting special rights to members of a group. (Kymlicka, 1996) start with the 1980s, a new dimension was given to minorities rights and Kymlicka suggests that these changes have followed two tracks there is one track for the specific case of indigenous peoples, and another track for minorities in general (200731) He goes on explaining that the rights that were exclusively given to indigenous peoples (the Indians and Inuit in Canada, Aboriginal in Australia, Indian tribes in the United State s, the Maori of new Zea reason) included land claims, language rights, customary law and representation in the central governmentthis is a perception that is sometimes promoted by indigenous peoples themselves and their advocates, who assert that the status of indigenous peoples has nothing in common with the claims of minorities, and that the ideology of indigenism has no connection with more general theories of multiculturalism (2007 34)The latter track that Kymlicka explains refers to the distinction between historic minorities (that were traditionally colonized in the country and included groups that were considered indigenous peoples and long-standing national minorities the Scots and Welsh of Britain, the Catalans and Basques in Spain, Puerto Rico in United States) and the migrants (2007). In what immigration is concerned, it appears that the countries with a postgraduate density of migrants (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States) have approached the problem of immigration through a process of assimilation with the hope that they will blend in with the native citizens. Solid evidence for the progress of minority rights was given by the European sum when they declared that the promotion of minority rights was the ascension criteria for the countries that wanted to join the Union (Kymlicka 2007)Another topic that Kymlicka approaches in his theory refers to the distinction and the connection between collective rights and individual rights. He begins by explaining that there are two meanings of collective rightscollective rights could refer to the right of a group to coiffure the liberty of its own individual members in the name of group solidarity or cultural probity (internal cropions) or it could refer to the right of a group to limit the economic or political power exercised by the larger society over the group, to ensure that the resources and institutions on which the minority depends are not vulnerable to majority decisions (exter nal protections) (1996 36)The internal restrictions imply intra-group relations- the group may use the state power to limit the liberty of its own members which raised the question of individual oppression. As an example, Kymlicka refers to culture where women are oppressed or cultures were the religious orthodoxy is enforced. Moreover, he argues that some minorities would limit even further the rights of their membersit is one thing to require people to do jury duty or to vote, and quite another to compel people to dish a particular church or to follow traditional gender roles. The former are intended to uphold liberal rights and democratic institutions, the latter restrict these rights in the name of cultural tradition or religious orthodoxy. (199636)External protections imply inter-group relations- the ethnic/ national group seeks to preserve its distinction and identity by limiting the effect of the decisions taken by the majority group. Doing so, this also raises yet another i ssue not of individual oppression but of inequality between groups.However, Kymlicka makes it clear that collective rights are indeed opposed to individual rightsOn one natural interpretation, collective rights refer to the rights accorded to and exercised by collectivities, where these rights are distinct from, and mayhap conflicting with, the rights accorded to the individuals who compose the collectivity. This is not the only possible definition of collective rightsindeed there are hundreds of definitions in the literaturebut almost everyone agrees that collective rights are, by definition, not individual rights. (1996 45)This matter led to a conflict of ideas between individualists and collectivists on the priority of individuals within a companionship or the community itself. It appears that individualists argue that the individuals are essential for a community seeing that a community only matters if it contributes to the well-being of its constituent members. On the other ha nd, collectivists deny the idea of a community thats meant to attend to its individuals. (1996)Collectivists and individualists disagree about whether communities can have rights or interests independently of their individual members (). Most such rights are not about the primacy of communities over individuals. Rather, they are based upon the idea that justice between groups requires that the members of different groups be accorded different rights. (1996 48)Despite the fact that multiculturalism and immigration have continuously been present in our lives and are essential components of the modern world, it is still impossible to find the answers to the al paths-present sociological issues that a multicultural society rises. What triggers the majority of problems is immigration with it, emerge matters concerning minority rights, individual freedom and identity, oppression, riots, protests for human rights, violence and racism. Economical and political issues, religion and race con cerns, language and culture barriers are also consequences of this cultural diversity that we are experiencing today.The topic looks as if it appealed to theoreticians and social scientists and it still remains an ever-present subject of discussion. It also led to conflicts of ideas between theoreticians such as Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka, both Canadians but with opposing views. It is quite obvious that multiculturalism is now seen as a persistent problem, taking into account the changes that took place in the structures of societies. However, there is no enquiry that immigration improved our knowledge of different cultures, languages, traditions and food it had also thought communities to be tolerant and accept diversity even embrace it. Economy and foxiness between countries has developed and societies became cosmopolitan. Even thought, migrants have always been put in a bad light, they are not in fact, trying to reject natives. They have good realizeing skills and are w illing to work for low-paid jobs and extra hours. Usually, they do the jobs that the natives would not do and it appears that there are more immigrants than natives that have a permanent job. It seems unfair to argue that migrants do not help the economy of the country they live in seeing that they still pay taxes and have less claimed benefits than the unemployed natives. Moreover, due to the fact they have a low wage they can always be found in the rough area of boastfully cities, living in modest and dangerous conditions. On the other hand, language it is definitely a cause of having low-paid jobs since most migrants do not speak the language, then making it more difficult to find employment.Another factor of immigration is religious discrimination. Considering the recent events in the United States, Arabs and Islamists in particular are discriminated and put in a bad light. Romanians and Bulgarians also have a bad reputation around Europe and a false image which may provide t o cultural conflicts between migrants and natives. Somehow, it appears that the society makes it harder for migrants to obtain necessary documents in order to reside and work legally in the country. Until recently, Romanians and Bulgarians were bound to apply for a work permit in order to work legally in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, attempts are being made to improve and solve these problems and it is quite obvious that many advantages have been gained from this. Moreover, it is evident that multiculturalism is the way forward and while modern societies need to become more tolerant of migrants and their values, the migrants have to accept the majoritys way of life and integrate in their community and nation. Unfortunately, these changes might not occur in the near future considering that minorities have more and more claims for rights and benefits and natives are comme il faut more and more reluctant to the controversial idea of multiculturalism, which seems to lead their lives .