The Third Rock Forum - Society

Article Title

Multi-cultural Society - a contradiction in terms.

Author

Theo

Topic Section(s)

Society

Submitted : 03-07-2007 06:30

Amended : 10-11-2014 12:50

Status : Approved:

Likes : 0

Dislikes : 0

The definition of a society must be a group of people who share common core moral values, who accept a common legal system and, at least to a large extent, acknowledge a common culture. The idea of a multi-cultural society is therefore essentially flawed. Many of the problems we face today ensue from the fact that, for ideological reasons, the British establishment is denying this obvious contradiction.

The reason they feel the need to ignore the contradiction is simple. There is a confusion between a multi-racial society which is highly desirable and should not be problematic, and a multi-cultural society. Discrimination against people because of their racial origins, the colour of their skin or any other physical characteristic is entirely unacceptable in a civilised society. On the other hand, those who hold values which are inconsistent with or opposed to the core values of our society should be, indeed must be, challenged.

Such challenging is a wholly healthy process because, out of the ensuing debate, over time, a new consensus will emerge. This new consensus re-instates values to which all members of society can adhere. The problem with those who promote a multicultural society is that they impede this process of challenge, compromise and consensus. By insisting that our society is made up of numerous different "communities", they are encouraging segregation, culturally, intellectually and geographically.

Replies

Status: Approved

Reply Date : 23-11-2010 11:33

Author : Kit

Multi-culturalism and society
'The definition of a society must be a group of people who share common core moral values, who accept a common legal system and, at least to a large extent, acknowledge a common culture. The idea of a multi-cultural society is therefore essentially flawed'

The reasoning here is itself flawed. It rests on a non sequitur (carried by the 'therefore'). How one 'defines' a society is a question that has occupied philosophers since Aristotle. But let's assume the first two criteria (core moral values and a common legal system). It's the third criterion which is relevant to the multi-culturalism debate: 'a common culture'. What does this mean? What does a common culture look like? What is the nature of the limiting condition placed on the argument ('at least to a large extent')? How large? Unless and until the above are clarified further, the conclusion ('therefore flawed') is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible to think of a society that has core moral values and a common legal system but diverse cultural worlds. This has been the case for the whole of my life-time (I head towards 70). It has only become an 'issue' by virtue of being linked to the more recent history of immigration.

Status: Approved

Reply Date : 24-11-2010 18:50

Author : georgebundle

The definition of a society must be a group of people who share common core moral values, who accept a common legal system and, create their own common culture. A society's common culture is the total sum of their own belief systems and the traditions and creative products that emanate from them. For that reason, the idea of a multi-cultural society is in deed not only flawed but a contradiction in terms.
Kit appears to have commented on the premise as it was presented by Theo rather than the legitimacy of the conclusion. Anyone, who travelled in Arab Lands, will know that, for example, a Sunny, Saudi Arabian society will NEVER, at least in the foreseeable future be part of a multicultural society where they would have to share beliefs, values and legal systems different from their own.
It is only in Western Europe, particularly in Great Britain, where this nice sounding idea of a multicultural society gains political significance, such an experiment is given a chance to fail.
Georgebundle

Status: Approved

Reply Date : 13-10-2013 11:25

Author : Theo

In response to Kit, I really don't think my original proposition:

"A society is a group of people who to some extent share common core moral values, who accept a common legal system and, at least to a large extent, acknowledge a common culture. The idea of a multi-cultural society is therefore essentially flawed."

is a non-sequitur. The last part is a conclusion which is correct, if you accept the premise. A better criticism would be that it begs the question; i.e. it assumes what it sets out to prove. Whether the question-begging criticism is valid clearly depends on whether you accept the definition of a society. It is difficult to think of a definition of society that does not include acceptance of core moral values, a common legal system and, at least to a large extent, acknowledge a common culture but I'm open to suggestions. In my view, unless you include these requirements or something like them, you end up defining society as a group of people who happen to live in the same defined geographical area - which is fair enough except that it ignores the meaning of the word 'society'..