Jesús
Turiso Sebastián
The late modernity in which we are living is
characterized, from the cultural point of view, by two apparently antithetical
phenomena, uniformity and diversity.
Nonetheless, and in spite of appearances, these two processes frequently
converge in the restriction of individual rights and liberties. Against the aberrant uniformity that is
taking place, there has arisen in the last few years a no less aberrant
devotion to a misunderstood diversity.
In many cases this has to do with compromises that serve the dictates of
the ideologies that were practiced in last times, for example, turning a blind
eye to the atrocities that the Soviet Union committed in many countries, while
strenuously censuring the no less atrocious practices of the United
States. Or, more recently, the laxity
and sympathy that some "martyrs of the tolerance" have with the armed
struggle of ETA in Spain, but that ignores the victims that its terror
causes. That is a necessary evil or
collateral damage?
Thus,
within the semantic sphere that sustains this misunderstood diversity, we are
now accustomed to hear expressions such as tolerance and multiculturalism, so
fashionable and at the same time inseparable in these days. Vasconcelos (Mexican thinker) thought that
“frequently excessive tolerance weakens and corrupts goodness.” He was right.
But let us give an example of this that occurred in some societies of
the past, an example that is not only possible but real as well. Let us imagine that a given culture has a
tradition of incinerating women along with their husbands when the latter die
so that they can travel through eternity accompanied by the woman with whom he
was joined by a sacred bond. Let us
further imagine that the justification of this tradition lies in that, since
the wife has been the loyal companion that has lived with him until the end,
she has the honor of being able to also share, together with her husband, his
funeral pyre and eternal life. There
would be very few today, even among the most conspicuous defenders of multiculturalism,
that would support these practices. Thus
the question, how far does cultural tolerance go? The contradictions in this sense are, at the
very least, striking. For example, the
stoning of a woman accused of adultery should be censured, but at the same
time, products are consumed from underdeveloped countries that have been
produced in slavelike or semislavelike conditions.
In
Europe, an erroneously understood tolerance of cultural diversity is causing
“uncomfortable” problems for “enlightened” European societies. The massive arrival of migrations from
African countries with different mentalities has brought about the choice
between either respecting the traditions of the immigrants or facilitating
their integration into a different culture.
For the defenders of multiculturalism the answer is clear: the
establishment of a positive discrimination of the immigrants. Thus they propose, for example, that certain
facets of public life be adapted to the cultural reality of the immigrants and
that the public education of their children be bilingual and that it integrate
aspects of their identity or that the state subsidize ethnic studies. Others advocate that democratic states defend
and promote pluralism, which necessarily consists in the promotion of different
ethnicities and cultures. Some go even
further by maintaining that these immigrants should be given specific
territories, with the necessary resources and powers for self-government so as
to develop their cultural identity independently of the rest of society. That would prevent interference by the state,
for example, in atavistic practices like subjecting girls to arranged marriages
or in ritual practices such as the ablation of the clitoris. In general, the intrusion of the state is not
only badly received, but is also understood as an attempt against the rights of
these citizens to develop their own traditions.
Nonetheless, this is something that reveals the contradiction of
democratic societies with traditions based in oppression and tribalism. Now, multiculturalism, understood in these
terms, or as implying the defense of cultural groups whose identity would go
against democratic principles, presupposes the “coup de grace” of the
democratic state.
The
fact that these kinds of situations should not be permitted does not
necessarily mean that either immigrants or diversity have to be feared. The error lies in condemning immigrants from
cultures significantly different from European ones to ethnic ghettos, as
happens in some countries, so that they can preserve their identity. Rather the idea is to encourage
interculturalism, that is, the realization of policies of integration in the
societies that receive them. Thus the
immigrant is fully incorporated in the new society and enjoys all the
corresponding rights, but on the other hand must accept democratic rules.
However, under the
cover of “political correctness”, the tolerance of diversity in all of its
manifestations, the defenders of ethnicity and unique and unrepeatable cultures
tend to impose the “everything is relative”, so as not to alter the “purity”
and authenticity of traditions. This is
what Alain Touraine called “false multiculturalisms”, sounding more like
xenophobia than respect for the other.
In my judgment, in having a strongly communitarian character,
multiculturalism restricts individual liberty.
Thus, I firmly believe that the human being as such, his liberty and
equality, should be put above his or her belonging to such and such a culture,
tribe, social sect or collective identity.
Tolerance of collective cultures and identities should situate itself
with respect to the fundamental and universal rights of human beings. When both sides come into conflict, the human
rights enunciated by the United Nations must necessarily prevail. The fact that in a given society it is customary
to devalue, abandon, and even kill a new born girl because there exists a preference,
and even a necessity, on the part of the family, for boys, this does not mean
that this tradition should be accepted because of a false idea with regard to
diversity. In the end, being tolerant
does not imply that one must tolerate foolishness.
