Why I am a Multi-Culturalist

Cultural relativism is an analytical stance taken by social scientists to examine cultural phenomena. Insofar as it is possible to do so, it permits them to analyze culture without making normative judgments and to compare cultural differences without remarking on the scientists’ personal cultural preferences. Cultural relativism is not a prescription for living in the world, and I don’t know anyone who lacks subjective preferences and values. Having such and such preferences and values instead of others implies that the possessor regards them as superior to others, at least for the possessor.

To the extent that I am willing to tolerate differences in preferences and values in others, I am a proponent of diversity and multiculturalism. Everyone is, and only a madman would wish for everyone to be exactly alike in all respects. We vary in our degree of tolerance for differences. I am willing to tolerate just about any practice or norm that does not involve any imposition on me or violence or coercion of others. By tolerate, I mean that I will under no circumstances forcibly interfere or condone forcible interference by others. I don’t necessarily approve of or embrace other people’s practices or values, but I take the default position that (a) it’s none of my business and (b) I might not be in a good position to judge the matter in view of the circumstances of other people.

Being an advocate of individual freedom necessarily involves a very high degree of willingness to tolerate differences. That doesn’t mean that I hold all values and practices in equal esteem, but it means that I don’t even bother making judgments about a lot of things that people do and say. To each his own. There’s no accounting for taste. Live and let live. That’s what I say, up to a point.

Some wingnuts, like that Atkinson character, dislike multiculturalism and frame the issue in the most extreme terms. “Either you condone honor killings or you don’t.” “Either you stone homosexuals or you don’t.” That’s quite true but a pretty meaningless way of looking at the issue. By this reasoning, if there is some point on the continuum at which toleration ceases, then the concept of toleration is a sham. You might as well impose your values and preferences on others right down to the most minute detail.

Debates about multiculturalism are not really about whether it is a good thing to tolerate differences. They should be about where the line is drawn and why one reckons that it should be drawn there instead of at some other point. For my part and in keeping with my preference for liberty, I take the position that it is better to err on the side of toleration. I recognize more than one point on the line. To the far right (if toleration increases rightward) is the point where forcible interference would be justified (I would stop the honor killing if I could). Somewhere to the left of that point is the point where voluntary, non-coercive actions such as advocacy or boycotting or shunning might be appropriate (I don’t contribute to the Boy Scouts because of their discrimination against gays and atheists and their authoritarianism). To the left of that might be a point where avoidance would be reasonable (I don’t watch Fox News).

Liberty will lead to diversity. To embrace liberty is to embrace diversity.