The PNC-led Government insists that “multiculturalism” is the order of the day; but, upon closer examination, its pronouncements go little farther than glibly announcing that “we’ve arrived from various parts of the globe, bringing our ‘cultures’ with us”.
Its “multicultural policies” go little farther than encouraging us to “express our culture” at various stipulated times of the year. This expression is typically confined to food, music and clothes. Is this what multiculturalism is really all about?
Essentially, the notion of multiculturalism includes three premises. Firstly, that we are each born into a culture. Unlike the other animals, human babies do not revert to instincts for their survival; they have to be taught. What they are taught is their “culture”. While all humans have some physiological needs, such as hunger, sex etc that must be fulfilled, how they are satisfied is culturally determined. The Portuguese may see roast pork as a very good meal, but many Indians will remain hungry if pork is their only choice. All in all, we receive our orientation towards life from the culture into which we are born.
Now, this does not mean that we are so structurally bound that we can’t change our practices. Culture isn’t instinct.
And this brings us to the second point about multiculturalism: the world-views into which we were born may differ from each other, and in some ways these differences may be significant. For instance, we agree with the Government that the political system should deliver the “good life” to us, but do we all agree on what the good life is? If we answer this question honestly, we will find out that this question is the source of much of the disagreements we have in Guyana, political and otherwise.
Some feel this is the problem with multiculturalism; it creates all sorts of divisions. But it is not multiculturalism that creates the divisions – they were already there. Multiculturalism, as a point of fact, offers a perspective on how we should handle a reality that has often been a source of conflict. Namely, that we must accept that our idea of the good life is only that – our idea of the good life. And we ought not to assume that what is the “good” for us is the good for everyone else. None of us has a monopoly on “the Truth” about life. Multiculturalism offers us the view that maybe our lives would be enriched if we were to examine the world-views of others in a non-judgmental fashion.
As humans, we confront the problems of social life in different times, places and circumstances; and our responses, embodied in our various cultures, offer us all a repertoire of options to deal with those problems. As such, multiculturalism suggests that cultural diversity is an asset to the human condition.
The third point about multiculturalism is that it does not hold that any one culture is undifferentiated and monolithic. It starts from our own experience within our own cultural group: there exists at all times a range of expressions and positions on any given issue. We may struggle and dispute with other members of our group as to who is “right” or who is “straying,” but we recognize our commonality.
Multiculturalism, then, accepts pluralism within our cultures; and, in what may be its most important contribution to the modern world, forces us to accept that we should, by extension, accept plurality in our wider national community, and by extension the world.
This does not mean that “everything goes” and that “everyone is right”, but it suggests that, at a minimum, we cannot take dogmatic positions on what ought to be the “correct” response to a particular exigency based only from our own point of view.
Multiculturalism insists that we have to assume that the other person may be right, and that we examine the views of the other seriously and with respect. It suggests that we have to engage in a continuous dialogue with each another to work our way out of our conflicts.
