Pluralism

[Resha Caner]

Do you like the idea of pluralism? If so, how do you think it is supposed to work?

 

[FireDragon76]

pluralism is just a fact of life in the US and other liberal democracies.

 

[Chesterton]

They used to refer to "The American Experiment". I think pluralism is part of the experiment. I guess it's still ongoing, and it's still too soon to know if it's going to be a success or failure. It's not looking good lately.

 

[jayem]

If our society wasn't pluralistic, just think of what we'd be missing. There'd be no:

Bagels, lox, and cream cheese.
Tacos, burritos, and enchiladas.
Tortellini, ravioli, and pizza.
Sesame chicken, egg rolls, and mu shu pork.
Pad Thai.
Sushi and teriyaki.
Tapas.
Shish kebab.
Bratwurst and frankfurters.
Gyros and baklava.
Tika masala and rogan josh.
And thousands more. All we'd be eating is white bread and Spam.

 

[Resha Caner]

If our society wasn't pluralistic, just think of what we'd be missing. There'd be no ...

The Jews have lived under the rule of European monarchies and Islamic theocracies alike. Were those pluralistic?

 

[Resha Caner]

They used to refer to "The American Experiment". I think pluralism is part of the experiment. I guess it's still ongoing, and it's still too soon to know if it's going to be a success or failure. It's not looking good lately.

pluralism is just a fact of life in the US and other liberal democracies.

That doesn't answer what you think of it. Mosquitoes are also a fact of life.

But, what makes you think pluralism has ever been a part of American democracy? Does saying it make it so?

 

[Chesterton]

It depends on what we're pluralistic about. In America, our motto is "from many, one", and we're supposed to be a melting pot where we become one. If the differences are superficial, like differences in food, clothing, music, etc., I think that's perfectly fine and doable. But a people has to have share the deeper and more consequential things like values, which include religion, politics and worldview. If people living in the same society differ on these things they will necessarily clash, so in that way pluralism is bad.

 

[jayem]

The Jews have lived under the rule of European monarchies and Islamic theocracies alike. Were those pluralistic?

If you couldn't find kosher hot dogs, Mogen David wine, or Hanukkah cards in stores, then I'd say no.

 

[jayem]

But a people has to have share the deeper and more consequential things like values, which include religion, politics and worldview.

I'm not sure Americans have ever had much of a shared worldview. And certainly not any common religious or political values.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

People are inherently tribalistic. In the long run, the wagons get drawn together or a new identity emerges incorporating of both previous groups. Multiple divergent groups don't live together indefinitely. They gravitate to their own kind, self-segregating to a lesser or greater extent. This can be seen with the Szekhlers, Germans and Vlachs in Carpathia; the Jews, Germans and Byelorussians in Galicia before WWI; etc. One group is dominant with various liberties allowed the non-dominant ones, provided it doesn't impact their own values too significantly. This always leaves the non-dominant group vulnerable to be scapegoated and some tension is inevitable. Often they try and conform as much as feasible, like Jews in Germany, without completely dissipating their separate identity.

In the US, it seems to me as an external observer, that certain identities were absorbed into a greater Americaness. German, French, English, Irish, Scottish, etc. Americans are just standard Americans. These aren't pluralistic, but melting pot unification into a single identity. If pressed, things like Italian heritage emerge, but these are subsidiary identities to the greater one.
This is akin to how Rome united Latins, Etruscans, Greeks, Celts, etc. into considering themselves Roman first and foremost.
When this fails, we see outgrouping. In the US, the formation of Chinatowns in the 19th century is an example or ghettoes in Europe.This occurs when a group is unwilling or unable to conform to a central tenet of the emerging or dominant identity, being race in the former and religion in the latter examples.

So quite frankly, true Pluralism is an unstable state. The difference either irons out, gets subsumed in a greater identity, or gets quarantined essentially.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's lots of de facto segregation in the US, we aren't all one melting pot. Nothing proves that more than sunday mornings, those are some of the most segregated hours in American life.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There's lots of de facto segregation in the US, we aren't all one melting pot. Nothing proves that more than sunday mornings, those are some of the most segregated hours in American life.

I would expect that. However, those identities mean far less today than they used to. The days of the Know-Nothings and anti-Catholicism or "No Irish Need Apply" are things of the past. A general Americaness irrespective of Christian affiliation can be seen. I doubt most would look askance at a Catholic or Jewish neighbour, but a Muslim would be different. There are deep rifts in all societies, but the question is whether these can be papered over or not, whether they are inimical to the whole. Generally when facing a common Other they are, but once that dissipates, then inherent human tribalism may take over. If sufficiently integrated, this is less likely, but familiarity may breed contempt as easily as understanding.

Our Societies are Lord of the Flies writ large, just a hair's breath away from turning on ourselves. Who would think in 1920s Germany that a serious attempt to exterminate the Jews would occur? Or 1980s Yugoslavia where Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats lived in the same towns? A bit of demagoguery and scapegoating is easy, for Us and Them comes very naturally to us.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree with your take on human nature. Perhaps that's part of the problem, Americans feel they are special and have a lot of belief in their natural goodness despite our Puritan past.

 

[Resha Caner]

So quite frankly, true Pluralism is an unstable state. The difference either irons out, gets subsumed in a greater identity, or gets quarantined essentially.

I agree. It's interesting that no one has spoken up to defend pluralism - a supposed badge of honor for America.

 

[Chesterton]

I agree. It's interesting that no one has spoken up to defend pluralism - a supposed badge of honor for America.

I don't think I've ever heard it mentioned as a badge of honor except from, well you know, shallow liberal types who generally don't think very deeply, and also want to imagine their fantasy of how things should be is real, as opposed to reality itself.

 

[Phil 1:21]

If our society wasn't pluralistic, just think of what we'd be missing. There'd be no:

Bagels, lox, and cream cheese.
Tacos, burritos, and enchiladas.
Tortellini, ravioli, and pizza.
Sesame chicken, egg rolls, and mu shu pork.
Pad Thai.
Sushi and teriyaki.
Tapas.
Shish kebab.
Bratwurst and frankfurters.
Gyros and baklava.
Tika masala and rogan josh.
And thousands more. All we'd be eating is white bread and Spam.

Great, now I'm hungry.

 

[jayem]

People are inherently tribalistic. In the long run, the wagons get drawn together or a new identity emerges incorporating of both previous groups. Multiple divergent groups don't live together indefinitely. They gravitate to their own kind, self-segregating to a lesser or greater extent. This can be seen with the Szekhlers, Germans and Vlachs in Carpathia; the Jews, Germans and Byelorussians in Galicia before WWI; etc. One group is dominant with various liberties allowed the non-dominant ones, provided it doesn't impact their own values too significantly. This always leaves the non-dominant group vulnerable to be scapegoated and some tension is inevitable. Often they try and conform as much as feasible, like Jews in Germany, without completely dissipating their separate identity.

In the US, it seems to me as an external observer, that certain identities were absorbed into a greater Americaness. German, French, English, Irish, Scottish, etc. Americans are just standard Americans. These aren't pluralistic, but melting pot unification into a single identity. If pressed, things like Italian heritage emerge, but these are subsidiary identities to the greater one.
This is akin to how Rome united Latins, Etruscans, Greeks, Celts, etc. into considering themselves Roman first and foremost.
When this fails, we see outgrouping. In the US, the formation of Chinatowns in the 19th century is an example or ghettoes in Europe.This occurs when a group is unwilling or unable to conform to a central tenet of the emerging or dominant identity, being race in the former and religion in the latter examples.

So quite frankly, true Pluralism is an unstable state. The difference either irons out, gets subsumed in a greater identity, or gets quarantined essentially.

Tribalism is definitely part of human nature. But one thing that might mitigate it is inter-ethnic pair bonding. According to a Pew survey in 2015, 17% of American newlyweds married persons of a different race or ethnicity. Which means there are more children of mixed race/ethnicity. The trend line is clearly upwards. And if it continues, in 3 or 4 centuries, pluralism might no longer be an issue. Everyone will be of mixed heritage.

Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Tribalism is definitely part of human nature. But one thing that might mitigate it is inter-ethnic pair bonding. According to a Pew survey in 2015, 17% of American newlyweds married persons of a different race or ethnicity. Which means there are more children of mixed race/ethnicity. The trend line is clearly upwards. And if it continues, in 3 or 4 centuries, pluralism might no longer be an issue. Everyone will be of mixed heritage.

Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 Years After Loving v. Virginia

That is a bit of wishful thinking, I am afraid.

I am South African. More than that, I am Afrikaans. My ancestors came to the Cape 350 years ago and those first generations intermarried with the locals and the slaves they brought from all over. Thereafter, intermarriage was never illegal until about the 1920s. As a consequence a large pool of Coloured people arose in the Cape colony with a group of 'Whites' - who themselves are actually of mixed ancestry as I explained. The latter then broke into Trekboere, later called Boere and Cape Dutch, before uniting again as Afrikaners in the 20th.. Even the Coloureds self-segregated into Griqua, Basters, Cape Malay, etc.
Often people moved between these identities on the periphery, but a core emerged in spite of, or perhaps on account of, intermarriage.
New identities emerged to replace the Malagasy, Bengali, Tamil, Khoikhoi, French Huguenot, Dutch, German, etc. that they replaced and ethnic and racial intermarriage merely resulted in new identities emerging.

From the 1920s onward the first steps to legal Apartheid (which means segregation) were enacted, which entailed racial miscegenation laws. What happened was that families were arbitrarily assigned to different racial groups based on phenotype, so that there were cases where one brother was White, another Coloured and another Black. The fact is though that these laws merely cemented cultural identities that already emerged and that a group of people, the Afrikaners, well-known to be of mixed heritage, instituted a set of absolute segregation laws.

The same occurred in Haiti or Indonesia or St. Helena. Racial intermarriage creates new divisions, new hybrid creole identities, which often entail 'racial' components. Race is a fairly arbitrary thing. I have often heard black South Africans say that African Americans coming to South Africa to experience their 'African roots' are ridiculous to them, as they have no real connection with them, nor would they be really seen as 'black' here. Invented identities like these are fluid and will just get redefined, especially if there are material advantages like Affirmative Action or escaping the opprobrium of 'white priviledge' that people nowadays espouse.

Besides, if racial animosity declines in the US, it could easily be replaced by others. Political divides between Democratic and Republican areas appear stark; regional identities like Southern or Texan appear strong; for some reason I could never quite fathom, Latin Americans are singled out as a group entirely separate from White and Black; etc. Pluralism has as many faces as people can self-ascribe identity to themselves, and by nature this need not be associated with any real objective standard beyond being able to recognise an Us as opposed to a Them.

 

[Resha Caner]

That is a bit of wishful thinking, I am afraid.

Indeed. But I have to say its sad that those who don't see race when they look at others - those who have laid aside such labels - are more likely to fall victim to a naive view of human nature than to profit from it. I'm a good example of that.

Racial intermarriage creates new divisions, new hybrid creole identities, which often entail 'racial' components.

Yes, the same thing has happened in the U.S. However, that history was at first white-washed, and now faces a danger of being subsumed by ethnic pride movements. As a result, it's not well understood.

One odd bit of American history was the intentional movement to create a distinct American history that separated us from the British. People such as Noah Webster didn't create their dictionaries as part of a benevolent gesture to teach poor, illiterate, frontier children. Rather, it was a conscious effort to create an "American" language. It's somewhat understandable. Once the first shots of revolution were fired, losing the fight meant losing everything for many of the "patriots". So, such efforts are a means of circling the wagons for protection.

... for some reason I could never quite fathom, Latin Americans are singled out as a group entirely separate from White and Black; etc.

That's fairly easy to explain. Their Catholicism didn't fit into the Puritan view of what America was supposed to be, so they were pushed out. And, so as to make it seem more reasonable, they were saddled with a reputation for laziness, shiftiness, etc. It sometimes amuses me to see Americans lumping them all together as "hispanic" when they themselves separate into various ethnic groups.

But of course, they have their stereotypes and suspicions of we "whites" as well.

And, as I mentioned in another thread, I've seen similar reactions to what you mentioned of blacks looking for their "African roots". I've seen Germans mocking Americans who are looking for their German roots.

It makes for a tough road for those caught in the middle. My family has a few mestizos who carry a bitter burden of being rejected by both sides.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree. It's interesting that no one has spoken up to defend pluralism - a supposed badge of honor for America.

I think it's a great idea...but like many intellectual ideas, it's not tailored to reality.
It doesn't account for the fact that a lot of people are really really stupid. Take arguments against "cultural appropriation" for example.