A Chastened Multiculturalism

A couple of months ago I discussed, somewhat but not altogether critically, a sensitive piece in the Washington Post Outlook section by Frances Stead Sellers, an assistant editor of that section who holds both British and American citizenship. Now she’s back with an even more sensitive — and, as I read it, somewhat chastened — look at multiculturalism in post-riot France and Europe..

In her previous piece she observed that “multiculturalism swept into Europe before its member countries had developed a philosophy to accommodate it….” Here, she writes:

Gone from the immigrant-receiving countries of northern Europe is the tradition of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” It has been replaced by the ethos of modern multiculturalism, the philosophy of the fruit salad as opposed to the message of the melting pot: “When in Rome, do as you did back home.”

These two quotes reveal, nicely and maybe even intentionally, the duality of “multiculturalism”: it is both a social fact — the existence of distinct, separate, and separated cultural or ethnic or racial communities — and the “ethos” or “philosophy” holding that this social reality is, or could be, a Good Thing.

After the riots in France, however, the fruit salad is beginning to look a bit sour to many observers.

“Sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity,” writes David Goodhart, founding editor of the monthly magazine Prospect, which bills itself as “Britain’s intelligent conversation.” Many Europeans are left reflecting upon the irony of multiculturalism: It protects and preserves every culture, except one — the host culture.

That is the challenge European countries have been confronting. While France has openly rejected the ideology of multiculturalism in order to conserve its own culture and constitution, the reality of multiculturalism has arrived in the country anyway — as those marginalized mobs in the Parisian suburbs demonstrate. Meanwhile, such countries as Britain and the Netherlands, which have openly embraced multicultural ideology, are now recognizing the disheartening reality of growing ghettos of poorly integrated immigrants.

Two different approaches, two distressingly similar outcomes.

According to Sellers,

Everyone looks across the Atlantic at the world’s most ambitious yet imperfect multicultural experiment. Can countries that don’t have America’s founding philosophy of equality and have not yet suffered the liberating agonies of a civil rights movement find a philosophy that will put their citizens — new and old — on equal footing?

Unfortunately, the Europeans don’t seem to be learning from our history any better than we are. Here is, apparently, what passes for “intelligent conversation” there:

“Europe is not America,” Goodhart warns. “One of the reasons for the fragmentation and individualism of American life is that it is a vast country. In Europe, with its much higher population density and planning controls, the rules have to be different. We are condemned to share — the rich cannot ignore the poor, the indigenous cannot ignore the immigrant — but that does not mean people are always happy to share.”

I see. We’re so big we’re fragmented and individualistic. Here, the rich ignore the poor and the indigenous ignore the immigrant.

Never mind that many of today’s rich were yesterday’s poor, and that because of our “ethos” and “philosophy” of individualism, of believing (even if we don’t consistently act on the belief) that everyone should be treated “without regard” to race, ethnicity, or religion, one can, if one chooses, become “indigenous” here in a generation or less.

But why should Europe now look to our traditional “ethos” and “philosophy” and experience of forming “a more perfect union” out of disparate ethnic and religious communities when so many Americans have rejected them in favor of the now more fashionable “multiculturalism” that, a few fires and riots aside, is working so well in Europe?

UPDATE

National Review Online has an article comparing the test required for British citizenship with its American equivalent. (The author’s husband, who is British, became an American citizen last August.)

Read the whole thing. Meanwhile:

Our test is about American history and American symbols and how our government works. Questions range from “What are the colors of the flag?” to asking for a quick definition of the Constitution.

The British test is very different….

What are some of the questions on the British exam? Well, they have a lot more to do with knowing how to behave in contemporary British society than they have to do with the great traditions of “this sceptered isle.”

For example there is one that asks (and I am not kidding): “What should you do if you spill someone’s pint in the pub?” The wrong answers are: “Dry their wet shirt with your own.” Or “Prepare for a fight in the car park” or “Run away from the pub.” The right answer: “Offer to buy the person another pint.” And, no, the test was not written by Monty Python. (By the way, my newly American husband got that right. There are some things you obviously never forget).

Here’s another question that’s sort of sweet but definitely strange: “Where does Father Christmas come from?” It isn’t “Lapland,” one of the choices, but that’s close. And no, “I don’t believe in Father Christmas anymore” is not a possible answer.

Can you imagine what a good time the ACLU, which doesn’t even believe in Christmas trees, would have with a question like that on an official American government test?

Some other questions seem to relate to the life that the Labor government assumes new citizens will lead. Such as: How old must you be to buy a lottery ticket? How many licenses do you need for your TVs? And, Can you be fired from your job if you join a union?

….

On the test there is practically nothing about British history or culture….