Minority Group and Multiculturalism Essay Example for Free

Minority Group and Multiculturalism Essay Ideas about the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity — commonly termed â€Å"multiculturalism† — emerged in the West as a vehicle for replacing older forms of ethnic and racial hierarchy with new relations of democratic citizenship. Despite substantial evidence that these policies are making progress toward that goal, a chorus of political leaders has declared them a failure and heralded the death of multiculturalism. This popular master narrative is problematic because it mischaracterizes the nature of the experiments in multiculturalism that have been undertaken, exaggerates the extent to which they have been abandoned, and misidentifies not only the genuine difficulties and limitations they have encountered but the options for addressing these problems. Talk about the retreat from multiculturalism has obscured the fact that a form of multicultural integration remains a live option for Western democracies. This report challenges four powerful myths about multiculturalism. First, it disputes the caricature of multiculturalism as the uncritical celebration of diversity at the expense of addressing grave societal problems such as unemployment and social isolation. Instead it offers an account of multiculturalism as the pursuit of new relations of democratic citizenship, inspired and constrained by human-rights ideals. Second, it contests the idea that multiculturalism has been in wholesale retreat, and offers instead evidence that multiculturalism policies (MCPs) have persisted, and have even grown stronger, over the past ten years. Third, it challenges the idea that multiculturalism has failed, and offers instead evidence that MCPs have had positive effects. Fourth, it disputes the idea that the spread of civic integration policies has displaced multiculturalism or rendered it obsolete. The report instead offers evidence that MCPs are fully consistent with certain forms of civic integration policies, and that indeed the combination of multiculturalism with an â€Å"enabling† form of civic integration is both normatively desirable and empirically effective in at least some cases. To help address these issues, this paper draws upon the Multiculturalism Policy Index. This index 1) identifies eight concrete policy areas where liberal-democratic states — faced with a choice — decided to develop more multicultural forms of citizenship in relation to immigrant groups and 2) measures the extent to which countries have espoused some or all of these policies over time. While there have been some high-profile cases of retreat from MCPs, such as the Netherlands, the general pattern from 1980 to 2010 has been one of modest strengthening. Ironically, some countries that have been vociferous about multiculturalism’s â€Å"failure† (e. g. , Germany) have not actually practiced an active multicultural strategy. Talk about the retreat from multiculturalism has obscured the fact that a form of multicultural integration remains a live option for Western democracies. However, not all attempts to adopt new models of multicultural citizenship have taken root or succeeded in achieving their intended effects. There are several factors that can either facilitate or impede the successful implementation of multiculturalism: Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future 1 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE Desecuritization of ethnic relations. Multiculturalism works best if relations between the state and minorities are seen as an issue of social policy, not as an issue of state security. If the state perceives immigrants to be a security threat (such as Arabs and Muslims after 9/11), support for multiculturalism will drop and the space for minorities to even voice multicultural claims will diminish. Human rights. Support for multiculturalism rests on the assumption that there is a shared commitment to human rights across ethnic and religious lines. If states perceive certain groups as unable or unwilling to respect human-rights norms, they are unlikely to accord them multicultural rights or resources. Much of the backlash against multiculturalism is fundamentally driven by anxieties about Muslims, in particular, and their perceived unwillingness to embrace liberal-democratic norms. Border control. Multiculturalism is more controversial when citizens fear they lack control over their borders — for instance when countries are faced with large numbers (or unexpected surges) of unauthorized immigrants or asylum seekers — than when citizens feel the borders are secure. Diversity of immigrant groups. Multiculturalism works best when it is genuinely multicultural — that is, when immigrants come from many source countries rather than coming overwhelmingly from just one (which is more likely to lead to polarized relations with the majority). Economic contributions. Support for multiculturalism depends on the perception that immigrants are holding up their end of the bargain and making a good-faith effort to contribute to society — particularly economically. When these facilitating conditions are present, multiculturalism can be seen as a low-risk option, and indeed seems to have worked well in such cases. Multiculturalism tends to lose support in high-risk situations where immigrants are seen as predominantly illegal, as potential carriers of illiberal practices or movements, or as net burdens on the welfare state. However, one could argue that rejecting immigrant multiculturalism under these circumstances is in fact the higher-risk move. It is precisely when immigrants are perceived as illegitimate, illiberal, and burdensome that multiculturalism may be most needed. I. Introduction Ideas about the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity have been in a state of flux around the world for the past 40 years. One hears much about the â€Å"rise and fall of multiculturalism. † Indeed, this has become a kind of master narrative, widely invoked by scholars, journalists, and policymakers alike to explain the evolution of contemporary debates about diversity. Although people disagree about what comes after multiculturalism, there is a surprising consensus that we are in a post-multicultural era. This report contends that this master narrative obscures as much as it reveals, and that we need an alternative framework for thinking about the choices we face. Multiculturalism’s successes and failures, as well as its level of public acceptance, have depended on the nature of the issues at stake and the countries involved, and we need to understand these variations if we are to identify a more sustainable model for accommodating diversity. This paper will argue that the master narrative 1) mischaracterizes the nature of the experiments in multiculturalism that have been undertaken, 2) exaggerates the extent to which they have been abandoned, and 3) misidentifies the genuine difficulties and limitations they have encountered and the options for addressing these problems. 2 Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE Before we can decide whether to celebrate or lament the fall of multiculturalism, we need first to make sure we know what multiculturalism has meant both in theory and in practice, where it has succeeded or failed to meet its objectives, and under what conditions it is likely to thrive in the future. The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism The master narrative of the â€Å"rise and fall of multiculturalism† helpfully captures important features of our current debates. Yet in some respects it is misleading, and may obscure the real challenges and opportunities we face. In its simplest form, the master narrative goes like this:1 Since the mid-1990s we have seen a backlash and retreat from multiculturalism. From the 1970s to mid-1990s, there was a clear trend across Western democracies toward the increased recognition and accommodation of diversity through a range of multiculturalism policies (MCPs) and minority rights. These policies were endorsed both at the domestic level in some states and by international organizations, and involved a rejection of earlier ideas of unitary and homogeneous nationhood. Since the mid-1990s, however, we have seen a backlash and retreat from multiculturalism, and a reassertion of ideas of nation building, common values and identity, and unitary citizenship — even a call for the â€Å"return of assimilation. † This retreat is partly driven by fears among the majority group that the accommodation of diversity has â€Å"gone too far† and is threatening their way of life. This fear often expresses itself in the rise of nativist and populist right-wing political movements, such as the Danish People’s Party, defending old ideas of â€Å"Denmark for the Danish. † But the retreat also reflects a belief among the center-left that multiculturalism has failed to help the intended beneficiaries — namely, minorities themselves — because it has failed to address the underlying sources of their social, economic, and political exclusion and may have unintentionally contributed to their social isolation. As a result, even the center-left political movements that initially championed multiculturalism, such as the social democratic parties in Europe, have backed 1 For influential academic statements of this â€Å"rise and fall† narrative, claiming that it applies across the Western democracies, see Rogers Brubaker, â€Å"The Return of Assimilation? † Ethnic and Racial Studies 24, no. 4 (2001): 531–48; and Christian Joppke, â€Å"The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy,† British Journal of Sociology 55, no. 2 (2004): 237–57. There are also many accounts of the â€Å"decline,† â€Å"retreat,† or â€Å"crisis† of multiculturalism in particular countries. For the Netherlands, see Han Entzinger, â€Å"The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism in the Netherlands,† in Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States, eds. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska (London: Palgrave, 2003) and Ruud Koopmans, â€Å"Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: The Crisis of Dutch Multiculturalism in Cross-National Perspective† (Brief, Danish Institute for International Studies, Copenhagen, December 2006). For Britain, see Randall Hansen, â€Å"Diversity, Integration and the Turn from Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom,† in Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, eds. Keith G. Banting, Thomas J. Courchene, and F. Leslie Seidle (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2007); Les Back, Michael Keith, Azra Khan, Kalbir Shukra, and John Solomos, â€Å"New Labour’s White Heart: Politics, Multiculturalism and the Return of Assimilation,† Political Quarterly 73, No. 4 (2002): 445–54; Steven Vertovec, â€Å"Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity,† International Social Science Journal 61 (2010): 83–95. For Australia, see Ien Ang and John Stratton, â€Å"Multiculturalism in Crisis: The New Politics of Race and National Identity in Australia,† in On Not Speaking Chinese: Living Between Asia and the West, ed. I. Ang (London: Routledge, 2001). For Canada, see Lloyd Wong, Joseph Garcea, and Anna Kirova, An Analysis of the ‘Anti- and Post-Multiculturalism’ Discourses: The Fragmentation Position (Alberta: Prairie Centre for Excellence in Research on Immigration and Integration, 2005), http://pmc.metropolis. Net/Virtual%20Library/FinalReports/Post-multi%20FINAL%20REPORT%20for%20PCERII%20_2_. pdf. For a good overview of the backlash discourse in various countries, see Steven Vertovec and Susan Wessendorf, eds. , The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses, Policies and Practices (London: Routledge, 2010). Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future 3 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE away from it and shifted to a discourse that emphasizes â€Å"civic integration,† â€Å"social cohesion,† â€Å"common values,† and â€Å"shared citizenship. †2 The social-democratic discourse of civic integration differs from the radical-right discourse in emphasizing the need to develop a more inclusive national identity and to fight racism and discrimination, but it nonetheless distances itself from the rhetoric and policies of multiculturalism. The term postmulticulturalism has often been invoked to signal this new approach, which seeks to overcome the limits of a naive or misguided multiculturalism while avoiding the oppressive reassertion of homogenizing nationalist ideologies. 3 II. What Is Multiculturalism? A. Misleading Model In much of the post-multiculturalist literature, multiculturalism is characterized as a feel-good celebration of ethnocultural diversity, encouraging citizens to acknowledge and embrace the panoply of customs, traditions, music, and cuisine that exist in a multiethnic society. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown calls this the â€Å"3S† model of multiculturalism in Britain — saris, samosas, and steeldrums. 4. Multiculturalism takes these familiar cultural markers of ethnic groups — clothing, cuisine, and music — and treats them as authentic practices to be preserved by their members and safely consumed by others. Under the banner of multiculturalism they are taught in school, performed in festivals, displayed in media and museums, and so on. This celebratory model of multiculturalism has been the focus of many critiques, including the following: It ignores issues of economic and political inequality. Even if all Britons come to enjoy Jamaican steeldrum music or Indian samosas, this would do nothing to address the real problems facing Caribbean and South Asian communities in Britain — problems of unemployment, poor educational outcomes, residential segregation, poor English language skills, and political marginalization. These economic and political issues cannot be solved simply by celebrating cultural differences. Even with respect to the (legitimate) goal of promoting greater understanding of cultural differences, the focus on celebrating â€Å"authentic† cultural practices that are â€Å"unique† to each group is potentially dangerous. First, not all customs that may be traditionally practiced within a particular group are worthy of being celebrated, or even of being legally tolerated, such as forced marriage. To avoid stirring up controversy, there’s a tendency to choose as the focus of multicultural celebrations safely inoffensive practices — such as cuisine or music — that can be enjoyably consumed by members of the larger society. But this runs the opposite risk 2. For an overview of the attitudes of European social democratic parties to these issues, see Rene Cuperus, Karl Duffek, and Johannes Kandel, eds. , The Challenge of Diversity: European Social Democracy Facing Migration, Integration and Multiculturalism (Innsbruck: Studien Verlag, 2003). For references to â€Å"post-multiculturalism† by progressive intellectuals, who distinguish it from the radical right’s â€Å"antimulticulturalism,† see, regarding the United Kingdom, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, After Multiculturalism (London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2000), and â€Å"Beyond Multiculturalism,† Canadian Diversity/Diversite Canadienne 3, no. 2 (2004): 51–4; regarding Australia, James Jupp, From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian Immigration, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and regarding the United States, Desmond King, The Liberty of Strangers: Making the American Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), and David A. Hollinger, Post-ethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism, revised edition (New York: Basic Books, 2006). Alibhai-Brown, After Multiculturalism. 3 4 4 Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE of the trivialization or Disneyfication of cultural differences,5 ignoring the real challenges that differences in cultural and religious values can raise. Third, the 3S model of multiculturalism can encourage a conception of groups as hermetically sealed and static, each reproducing its own distinct practices. Multiculturalism may be intended to encourage people to share their customs, but the assumption that each group has its own distinctive customs ignores processes of cultural adaptation, mixing, and melange, as well as emerging cultural commonalities, thereby potentially reinforcing perceptions of minorities as eternally â€Å"other. † This in turn can lead to the strengthening of prejudice and stereotyping, and more generally to the polarization of ethnic relations. Fourth, this model can end up reinforcing power inequalities and cultural restrictions within minority groups. In deciding which traditions are â€Å"authentic,† and how to interpret and display them, the state generally consults the traditional elites within the group — typically older males — while ignoring the way these traditional practices (and traditional elites) are often challenged by internal reformers, who have different views about how, say, a â€Å"good Muslim† should act. It can therefore imprison people in â€Å"cultural scripts† that they are not allowed to question or dispute. According to post-multiculturalists, the growing recognition of these flaws underlies the retreat from multiculturalism and signals the search for new models of citizenship that emphasize 1) political participation and economic opportunities over the symbolic politics of cultural recognition, 2) human rights and individual freedom over respect for cultural traditions, 3) the building of inclusive national identities over the recognition of ancestral cultural identities, and 4) cultural change and cultural mixing over the reification of static cultural differences. This narrative about the rise and fall of 3S multiculturalism will no doubt be familiar to many readers. In my view, however, it is inaccurate. Not only is it a caricature of the reality of multiculturalism as it has developed over the past 40 years in the Western democracies, but it is a distraction from the real issues that we need to face. The 3S model captures something important about natural human tendencies to simplify ethnic differences, and about the logic of global capitalism to sell cosmopolitan cultural products, but it does not capture the nature of post-1960s government MCPs, which have had more complex historical sources and political goals. B. Multiculturalism in Context It is important to put multiculturalism in its historical context. In one sense, it is as old as humanity — different cultures have always found ways of coexisting, and respect for diversity was a familiar feature of many historic empires, such as the Ottoman Empire. But the sort of multiculturalism that is said to have had a â€Å"rise and fall† is a more specific historic phenomenon, emerging first in the Western democracies in the late 1960s. This timing is important, for it helps us situate multiculturalism in relation to larger social transformations of the postwar era. More specifically, multiculturalism is part of a larger human-rights revolution involving ethnic and racial diversity. Prior to World War II, ethnocultural and religious diversity in the West was characterized by a range of illiberal and undemocratic relationships of hierarchy,6 justified by racialist ideologies that explicitly propounded the superiority of some peoples and cultures and their right to rule over others. These ideologies were widely accepted throughout the Western world and underpinned both domestic laws (e. g. , racially biased immigration and citizenship policies) and foreign policies (e. g. , in relation to overseas colonies). 5 6 Neil Bissoondath, Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. (Toronto: Penguin, 1994). Including relations of conqueror and conquered, colonizer and colonized, master and slave, settler and indigenous, racialized and unmarked, normalized and deviant, orthodox and heretic, civilized and primitive, and ally and enemy. Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future 5 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE After World War II, however, the world recoiled against Hitler’s fanatical and murderous use of such ideologies, and the United Nations decisively repudiated them in favor of a new ideology of the equality of races and peoples. And this new assumption of human equality generated a series of political movements designed to contest the lingering presence or enduring effects of older hierarchies. We can distinguish three â€Å"waves† of such movements: 1) the struggle for decolonization, concentrated in the period 1948–65; 2) the struggle against racial segregation and discrimination, initiated and exemplified by the AfricanAmerican civil-rights movement from 1955 to 1965; and 3) the struggle for multiculturalism and minority rights, which emerged in the late 1960s. Multiculturalism is part of a larger human-rights revolution involving ethnic and racial diversity. Each of these movements draws upon the human-rights revolution, and its foundational ideology of the equality of races and peoples, to challenge the legacies of earlier ethnic and racial hierarchies. Indeed, the human-rights revolution plays a double role here, not just as the inspiration for a struggle, but also as a constraint on the permissible goals and means of that struggle. Insofar as historically excluded or stigmatized groups struggle against earlier hierarchies in the name of equality, they too have to renounce their own traditions of exclusion or oppression in the treatment of, say, women, gays, people of mixed race, religious dissenters, and so on. Human rights, and liberal-democratic constitutionalism more generally, provide the overarching framework within which these struggles are debated and addressed. Each of these movements, therefore, can be seen as contributing to a process of democratic â€Å"citizenization† — that is, turning the earlier catalog of hierarchical relations into relationships of liberaldemocratic citizenship. This entails transforming both the vertical relationships between minorities and the state and the horizontal relationships among the members of different groups. In the past, it was often assumed that the only way to engage in this process of citizenization was to impose a single undifferentiated model of citizenship on all individuals. But the ideas and policies of multiculturalism that emerged from the 1960s start from the assumption that this complex history inevitably and appropriately generates group-differentiated ethnopolitical claims. The key to citizenization is not to suppress these differential claims but to filter them through and frame them within the language of human rights, civil liberties, and democratic accountability. And this is what multiculturalist movements have aimed to do. The precise character of the resulting multicultural reforms varies from group to group, as befits the distinctive history that each has faced. They all start from the antidiscrimination principle that underpinned the second wave but go beyond it to challenge other forms of exclusion or stigmatization. In most Western countries, explicit state-sponsored discrimination against ethnic, racial, or religious minorities had largely ceased by the 1960s and 1970s, under the influence of the second wave of humanrights struggles. Yet ethnic and racial hierarchies persist in many societies, whether measured in terms of economic inequalities, political underrepresentation, social stigmatization, or cultural invisibility. Various forms of multiculturalism have been developed to help overcome these lingering inequalities. The focus in this report is on multiculturalism as it pertains to (permanently settled) immigrant groups,7 7 There was briefly in some European countries a form of â€Å"multiculturalism† that was not aimed at the inclusion of permanent immigrants, but rather at ensuring that temporary migrants would return to their country of origin. For example, mothertongue education in Germany was not initially introduced â€Å"as a minority right but in order to enable guest worker children to reintegrate in their countries of origin† (Karen Schonwalder, â€Å"Germany: Integration Policy and Pluralism in a Self-Conscious Country of Immigration,† in The Multiculturalism Backlash: European Discourses, Policies and Practices, eds. Steven Vertovec and Susanne Wessendorf [London: Routledge, 2010], 160). Needless to say, this sort of â€Å"returnist† multiculturalism — premised on the idea that migrants are foreigners who should return to their real home — has nothing to do with multiculturalism policies (MCPs) premised on the idea that immigrants belong in their host countries, and which aim to make immigrants 6 Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE but it is worth noting that struggles for multicultural citizenship have also emerged in relation to historic minorities and indigenous peoples. 8 C. The Evolution of Multiculturalism Policies. The case of immigrant multiculturalism is just one aspect of a larger â€Å"ethnic revival† across the Western democracies,9 in which different types of minorities have struggled for new forms of multicultural citizenship that combine both antidiscrimination measures and positive forms of recognition and accommodation. Multicultural citizenship for immigrant groups clearly does not involve the same types of claims as for indigenous peoples or national minorities: immigrant groups do not typically seek land rights, territorial autonomy, or official language status. What then is the substance of multicultural citizenship in relation to immigrant groups? The Multiculturalism Policy Index is one attempt to measure the evolution of MCPs in a standardized format that enables comparative research. 10 The index takes the following eight policies as the most common or emblematic forms of immigrant MCPs:11 Constitutional, legislative, or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism, at the central and/ or regional and municipal levels The adoption of multiculturalism in school curricula The inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in the mandate of public media or media licensing Exemptions from dress codes, either by statute or by court cases Allowing of dual citizenship The funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities The funding of bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction Affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups12 feel more at home where they are. The focus of this paper is on the latter type of multiculturalism, which is centrally concerned with constructing new relations of citizenship. 8 In relation to indigenous peoples, for example — such as the Maori in New Zealand, Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Australia, American Indians, the Sami in Scandinavia, and the Inuit of Greenland — new models of multicultural citizenship have emerged since the late 1960s that include policies such as land rights, self-government rights, recognition of customary laws, and guarantees of political consultation. And in relation to substate national groups — such as the Basques and Catalans in Spain, Flemish and Walloons in Belgium, Scots and Welsh in Britain, Quebecois in Canada, Germans in South Tyrol, Swedish in Finland — we see new models of multicultural citizenship that include policies such as federal or quasi-federal territorial autonomy; official language status, either in the region or nationally; and guarantees of representation in the central government or on constitutional courts. 9. Anthony Smith, The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). 10 Keith Banting and I developed this index, first published in Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka, eds. , Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Many of the ideas discussed in this paper are the result of our collaboration. 11 As with all cross-national indices, there is a trade-off between standardization and sensitivity to local nuances. There is no universally accepted definition of multiculturalism policies and no hard and fast line that would sharply distinguish MCPs from closely related policy fields, such as antidiscrimination policies, citizenship policies, and integration policies. Different countries (or indeed different actors within a single country) are likely to draw this line in different places, and any list is therefore likely to be controversial. 12 For a fuller description of these policies, and the justification for including them in the Multiculturalism Policy Index, see the index website, www.queensu. ca/mcp. The site also includes our separate index of MCPs for indigenous peoples and for national minorities. Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future 7 MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE Other policies could be added (or subtracted) from the index, but there was a recognizable â€Å"multiculturalist turn† across Western democracies in the last few decades of the 20th century, and we can identify a range of public policies that are seen, by both critics and defenders, as emblematic of this turn. Each of the eight policy indicators listed above is intended to capture a policy dimension where liberaldemocratic states faced a choice about whether or not to take a multicultural turn and to develop more multicultural forms of citizenship in relation to immigrant groups. While multiculturalism for immigrant groups clearly differs in substance from that for indigenous peoples or national minorities, each policy has been defended as a means to overcome the legacies of earlier hierarchies and to help build fairer and more inclusive democratic societies. Therefore, multiculturalism is first and foremost about developing new models of democratic citizenship, grounded in human-rights ideals, to replace earlier uncivil and undemocratic relations of hierarchy and exclusion. Needless to say, this account of multiculturalism-as-citizenization differs dramatically from the 3S account of multiculturalism as the celebration of static cultural differences. Whereas the 3S account says that multiculturalism is about displaying and consuming differences in cuisine, clothing, and music, while neglecting issues of political and economic inequality, the citizenization account says that multiculturalism is precisely about constructing new civic and political relations to overcome the deeply entrenched inequalities that have persisted after the abolition of formal discrimination. It is important to determine which of these accounts more accurately describes the Western experience with multiculturalism. Before we can decide whether to celebrate or lament the fall of multiculturalism, we first need to make sure we know what multiculturalism has in fact been. The 3S account is misleading for three principal reasons. 13 Multiculturalism is first and foremost about developing new models of democratic citizenship, grounded in human-rights ideals. First, the claim that multiculturalism is solely or primarily about symbolic cultural politics depends on a misreading of the actual policies. Whether we look at indigenous peoples, national minorities, or immigrant groups, it is immediately apparent that MCPs combine economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions. While minorities are (rightly) concerned to contest the historic stigmatization of their cultures, immigrant multiculturalism also includes policies that are concerned with access to political power and economic opportunities — for example, policies of affirmative action, mechanisms of political consultation, funding for ethnic self-organization, and facilitated access to citizenship. In relation all three types of groups, MCPs combine cultural recognition, economic redistribution, and political participation. Second, the claim that multiculturalism ignores the importance of universal human rights is equally misplaced. On the contrary, as we’ve seen, multiculturalism is itself a human-rights-based movement, inspired and constrained by principles of human rights and liberal-democratic constitutionalism. Its goal is to challenge the traditional ethnic and racial hierarchies that have been discredited by the postwar human-rights revolution. Understood in this way, multiculturalism-as-citizenization offers no support for accommodating the illiberal cultural practices within minority groups that have also The same human-righ.

The Difference Between Life and Breath :: essays research papers

The Difference Between Life and Breath   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Respiratory therapists are highly skilled practitioners who provide treatment, management and care of patients with breathing deficiencies and abnormalities. I chose to go into this profession not just for the money, as some might think, but because of my own life experiences in having to deal with taking care of my Dad, who died from third stage emphysema and because my son has asthma. Part of my acceptance into the respiratory program at Ivy Tech was to job shadow a therapist for a day. I chose to do this at St. Clare Medical Center in Crawfordsville. I called to set up my appointment for the job shadow and found out I would be shadowing Pam Ehrie, which was good because I already knew her as she helped to care for my Dad and also cared for my son.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I arrived at the Respiratory Department at 10 a.m. on Monday of the following week and Pam came out to greet me with a scrub jacked and a name tag and briefly explained that I would go with her to make her rounds for the day. â€Å"Oh yesterday would’ve been a much better day to have come,† she exclaimed. â€Å"We had three codes so there was a lot more going on and it would‘ve given you a better idea of what we really do.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"What are codes?† I ask, although I already had a pretty good idea.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Oh that is when the patient arrives and they are basically gone, not breathing, and we have to recessitate them back to life.† Pam says. â€Å"I forget that you are just starting into this, so if there is anything that I say and you do not understand it, just ask me.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pam is a rather petite, bubbly individual who stands about five foot tall with shoulder length reddish brown hair and green eyes. She is pretty, with a warm smile that hugs you when you first meet her and a friendly face with kind, gentle eyes. Pam has been a therapist for fourteen years and she also went through her schooling at Ivy Tech. She loves her job, co-workers, and helping others. â€Å"It is my passion in life,† she says. She embraces the idea that she is giving a better quality of life to others. She is also the senior Registered Respiratory Therapist on staff at St. Clare Medical Center and she does all of the clinical sequences with the new students at Ivy Tech.

A Comparison Between King Lear and Oedipus Essay

A tragedy is not only an imitation of life in general but an imitation of an action, as Aristotle defined his ideas in the Poetics, which presents Oedipus as an ultimate tragic hero. There is a obvious link between the two characters in that blindness – both literal and metaphorical – is a strong theme in the stories. Issues of self-recognition and self-knowledge are significant for Oedipus as well as King Lear. For Aristotle, Reversal, Recognition and Suffering are key elements in a complex tragedy. The human instinct to seek knowledge of and to know an individual’s character is essential to understand their actions (Aristotle, 1-49). King Lear and King Oedipus find that self recognition and self-knowledge are very important keys to understand their behaviour and as a consequence their lives. They learn by painful suffering that wealth and kingship means nothing and that both are only common men in the end. So all three key terms of Aristotle’s complex tragedy could be found in the plays: reversal, recognition and suffering. At the start of the play, King Lear is defined by his kingship, wealth and power, but when he introduces the ‘love-contest’ over his inheritance, the losing and suffering begins. First and most obviously, he loses his wealth and power. Although the hundred knights and title he retains, having given away his royal power, give him an illusionary security, without his power he is only a poor imitation of a king. It is the Fool who demonstrates with his honest and teasing answers that Lear has lost his identity, not only his property. He says â€Å"All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with† (1.4.142) and â€Å"now thou art an 0 without a figure; I am better than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing† (1.4.184). The Fool as well as Kent also tries to show Lear that his decision is not only about property and losing a big part of his identity. It is also about losing his most valuable treasure – his only true loving daughter. The Fool and Kent support King Lear during the play to find his identity, in contrast to Lear’s two elder daughters. They show him his weakness brutally when they do not allow him to keep his knights. This is the last evidence for Lear  that his two elder daughters have only wanted his property and do not care about him as a father. He still does not admit that self-worth and self identity has nothing to do with needs, nothing to do with wealth and power and that love has nothing to do with quantity but with quality. In his pain, he flees the truth as a last solution. The storm scene shows Lear’s madness and his journey to self recognition best, in which he must painfully accept that he is no more than a common man, powerless against the force of nature and the gods. It is not only Lear who has to find himself in this play. The bastard son of the Earl of Gloucester, Edmund, believes himself to be a character without scruple. His only thoughts are selfish and he does not understand that his machinations are ultimately self destructive and false. He plots against his brother and his father to gain power. Not even when his father is blinded as a result of his denunciation does he show any pity. Edmund thinks that he has a natural right to use everything to get what he wants. However, at the end, he realizes his wrong behaviour when he declares, â€Å"I pant for life. Some good I mean to do† (5.3.241). But it is too late – for Cordelia and for him. At the end Lear knows that only the love of his daughter Cordelia is worth living for. Nonetheless Cordelia and Lear die – Lear, wiser than he ever was and so a real tragic hero and Cordelia – a sacrificial victim of this tragedy. Lear finally finds out that true love has nothing to do with property but with knowing oneself and recognizing each other. True understanding of love must mean true understanding of oneself. King Oedipus’s character is similar to King Lear’s. Oedipus is a man, who is fully aware of his strength, intelligence and power. As the solver of the riddle and the national leader of Thebes in a moment of crisis, he is a noble hero and a great celebrity. Thebes high esteem for Oedipus is shown through the Chorus until the bitter end of the play. In the beginning of the play King Oedipus is a person of vast self-assurance. This character attribute is demonstrated in his willingness to take the full responsibility  for dealing with the crisis, the plague. King Oedipus feels certain that he will also manage this crisis as he has done before with the riddle of the sphinx. He feels so self-assure that he even thinks he is able to trick the oracle and the gods by simply fleeing Corinth. But this is a big miscalculation as the play shows. The outline in the story of Oedipus’s self discovery begins when he starts to solve the second riddle, the riddle of Laius death. During this solving Oedipus’ character changes from an honour man to a fearful, condemned man by his tragic fate in the end. The changing of the character is accompanied by the changing of the riddle: the question â€Å"Who is the murderer of Laius?† changes to â€Å"Who am I?† Aristotle in his Poetics discusses this reversal when he speaks of â€Å"a change of the action into the opposite† (Aristotle, 18). As the tragedy moves on, finding the truth for Oedipus becomes an obsession. The dispute between Teiresias and Oedipus demonstrates that Oedipus does not even take the possibility of involvement in something bad into consideration. Teiresias, after he has been provoked, wants Oedipus to find the truth, to acknowledge himself. â€Å"I tell you, you and your loved ones live together in infamy, you cannot see how far you’ve gone in guilt† (418). Although, Teiresias’s speeches are very clear Oedipus negates the truth before himself. The ironic net of facts becomes clearer and clearer. After the entry of the messenger and the shepherd, Jocasta suddenly recognises the truth. She now knows what she is to Oedipus and what guilt lies upon her family. Nevertheless she tries to avoid the truth and tries to save Oedipus when she begs him â€Å"Stop – in the name of god, if you love your own life, call off this search!† (1163). But now, Oedipus wants to know everything so she could only scream, â€Å"You’re doomed – may you never fathom who you are!† (1173). When in the following lines Oedipus claims that he is a son of Chance he is only just entering the circle of increasing knowledge about himself. He soon realizes that outer forces may have impact on his life, but he still relies on his own genius and infallibility. As Oedipus discovers his own identity he has to learn about himself what it is to be a man. He learns that his behaviour and his mistakes are partially responsible for this horrific truth. So he takes the full responsibility for his punishment. In blinding himself he does not die physically but in a sense he is dead. Moving out into the wastelands there is nothing to look forward to except death. The self-recognition of what he  has done and consequently what he is to his children has destroyed him. The play ends in a sense as it begins, with the greatness of a hero. But it is a different kind of greatness. Now it is based on self-recognition and self-knowledge instead of ignorance and pride. Finally Oedipus has gained knowledge of himself and his reality and he realizes that higher forces, such as the gods and destiny have influence. Werner Jaeger declares in his Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture â€Å"to know oneself for Sophocles is to know man’s powerlessness† (Jaeger, 284). And this is to be true for Oedipus as well as for King Lear. King Lear’s and King Oedipus’s awareness of their strength and power is nothing in the end. At the start of the play both kings are majestic figures. Nevertheless not only their character flaws of pride and the exaggerated opinion of themselves lead to this ultimate downfall in the end. Oedipus and Lear cause their own fall partly because they do not know who they are. They first have to find out, through incredible sufferings, that they are nothing more but common men. Both characters symbolize the tragic hero in a perfect sense. The human suffering in these plays is so significant that the reader can almost feel it. Though Oedipus’ fate is determined, the reader still feels sympathy for the tragic hero, believing that somehow he doesn’t deserve what ultimately comes to him. The same applies for King Lear, who gives everything away to his daughters, who will only betray and defraud him. Although in both plays the theme of self-knowledge is very important, it is only one of many ways of entry to the texts. The theme of Blindness, the impact of the Gods and Fate. are other interesting ways to look at the plays. But we learn from the first perspective that self-recognition and learning about oneself has also something positive. No matter how painful the realization, how destructive the outcome there are aspects of growth and gain in it. An important outcome of these plays is that the only person who can tell you who you really are is you by yourself. And this knowledge mitigates the sufferings at least a little bit.

Prohibition Essay examples - 1083 Words

Prohibition, A Complete Failure nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Prohibition had become an issue long before its eventual induction as the 18th amendment in 1920. Organizations came about for the sole purpose of an alcohol free America. In 1833, an estimated one million Americans belonged to some type of temperance association (Behr 12). Many believed the absence of alcohol would help the poor as well as big business. Lower class people would put more money into savings accounts and productivity would increase among workers (Hanson 27). More importantly the â€Å"noble experiment†Ã¢â‚¬â€was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, and improve the health and hygiene in America† (Thorton 1). Although gangsters of the 1920’s†¦show more content†¦Racketeers and gangsters competed for business, spawning a wave of violence across the nation† (Hanson 35). No place was more evident of this than Chicago. â€Å" The evil genius of all gangsterdom was Al Capone, first haled to Chicago at 23 by Johnny Torrio, who was at the time boss of the Windy City’s underworld† (Edey 175). By the time Capone took control in 1925 he controlled all the speakeasies in Chicago, which were estimated to be at 10,000, and had a gang 700 strong to enforce his reign (Edey 175). During Capone’s reign â€Å"Chicago suffered upwards of 400 gang murders a year† (Edey 175). For the most part main stream America accepted gangsters. It was a necessary evil to get the alcohol they craved (Bergreen 231). Until that is, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929. â€Å" Crime in Chicago has been so psychologically successful, that it takes such a romantically excessive episode as the recent St. Valentine’s Day Massacre to stir the citizens at all â€Å"(Bergreen 319). Seven of Bugs Moran’s (a chief rival of Capone) men were slaughtered in warehouse on Clark Street in Chicago. The five killers, two dressed as policemen, made a clean get away (Heimel 48, 49). What especially galled officials was â€Å"the spectacle of a squad of hit men masquerading as police†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Bergreen 314). As a mark of the violence created by gangsters during prohibition, consider the homicide rate, which increased from less than 7 per 100,000 in1920Show MoreRelatedProhibition Of Drugs And Alcohol1492 Words   |  6 PagesPopular belief holds that consumption of drugs and alcohol encourages violence and that the appropriate response is prohibition of these goods. However, a different viewpoint is that prohibition creates illegal underground markets, which require violence and crime to remedy in-house disputes. This paper examines the relationship between prohibition and violence using the historical data and behavior following previous U.S. drug and alcohol laws, regulations, and enforcement on indicators of violenceRead More Prohibition Essay730 Words   |  3 Pages Prohibition nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The success of the prohibition movement can be seen from many different views. It was measured by the prohibitionists many motives, their social make-up, their creative reasons they came up with to promote their cause, and the positive outcomes they imagined possible by prohibiting alcohol consumption. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;The prohibitionists had several motives for letting loose their concern of alcohol. The main issue discussed, using theRead MoreProhibition And Prohibition Of Alcohol1007 Words   |  5 PagesAmendment and prohibition of alcohol. The Eighteenth Amendment had made the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol illegal. By illegalizing alcohol, the Eighteenth Amendment attempted to decrease domestic violence, increase productivity in the workplace, and diminish poverty and health problems associated with the consumption of alcohol. Instead it created organized crime, disrespect for the law, and general resentment towards the government. The Eighteenth Amendment and the Prohibition of alcoholRead MoreProhibition And Prohibition Essay1190 Words   |  5 Pages Proponents of prohibition are quick to argue how crime technically decreased in its fourteen years before being repealed. While this is true for minor crimes of the times like mischief and vagrancy, organized crime saw a sharp increase once the Eighteenth Amendment outlawed alcoholic substances. While the Volstead Act was passed to enforce the amendment, and had an immediate amount of success, it was also attributed to an increase in the homicide rate to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920sRead MoreThe History of Drug Prohibition Essays953 Words   |  4 Pages Drug prohibition was not always accepted as it is today. Indeed, until the early twentieth century, there were few drug laws at all in the United States. Before the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, one could buy heroin at the corner drugstore; even Coca-Cola contained small amounts of cocaine until 1903 (Vallance 4). Some of the most proscribed drugs today were sold like candy and (quite literally) soda pop. What caused the sudden shift to prohibition? Prohibitionists often point outRead MoreThe Negative Effects Of Drug Prohibition1297 Words   |  6 PagesNumerous researchers contend that drug prohibition policies actually create more issues than are solved. The negative effects of drug restriction policies include: negative health effects, increased drug effects, crimes at home and abroad, increased violence, misuse of assets and resources, violation of civil rights and excess on criminal and government systems. Heavy emphasis on upholding criminal restrictions on drug creation and selling was also significantly influencing the productivity of illegalRead MoreEffects Of Prohibition On The United States1272 Words   |  6 Pagesadults because it will reduce drug related violence, promote safe drug usage, increase tax revenue, and make permanent recovery from drug usage less difficult. The prohibition on drugs forces people to turn to the black market. Prohibition has created a much larger set of secondary harms associated with the criminal market. Prohibition permits and causes the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the oftenRead MoreThe Social Impacts of Marijuana Prohibition in Brazil649 Words   |  3 Pageslike cancer, multiple sclerosis, anxiety and glaucoma. The problem is that these people have to be criminals to be able to treat themselves. Social Impacts Marijuana impacts on health Less Jails more treatment The social impacts of marijuana prohibition in brazil are many. The war on drugs, violence, firearms trafficking involved, corruption and many others. Because its so hard to differentiate an addict and a drug dealer by the amount of marijuana they carry, addicts end up in jail. Now, addictionRead MoreProhibition Of The Usa Prohibition2994 Words   |  12 PagesProhibition in the USA Prohibition was introduced to the United States of America on the 16th of January 1920 with the hope of a pure nation that was not under the influence of alcohol. Prohibition was the legal prohibiting of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, which did not include the consuming of alcohol as you could still keep alcohol that was made or bought before 16th of January 1920. As the alcohol consumption rose substantially before the 1920s, it spurred the temperance movementsRead MoreThe Drug Prohibition Of The United States Of America1629 Words   |  7 PagesThe cohorts of drug prohibition argue that the benefits of the prohibition are self-evident and undeniable. The basis of this assumption argument is that without prohibition the consumption of drug would skyrocket, and therefore, lead to disastrous outcomes. However, there is no evidence on the commonly held belief. The empirical evidence that exists does not support the notion of souring drug consumption. For instance, in the Netherland and Switzerland, where marijuana is legalized, the consumption