Conditions for dialogue and illuminating inequality in multicultural societies

Abstract

In a recent article, Nesbitt-Larking (2007) postulated the notion of 'deep multiculturalism', dependent, at least in part, on dialogue and on 'host' societies questioning their core values. In this commentary I suggest that whilst such a proposal is indeed a worthy ideal, the social psychological processes underpinning how this can be achieved need to be adequately addressed if such a vision is to become a reality. Using Social Representation Theory, I hope to explicate the operation of power, ideologies and collective memory on the process of representation, and suggest that understanding this process may better enable one to manage the obstacles involved in a project of deep multiculturalism. Drawing on Whiteness studies, I suggest that for a host society to question their core values, certain unconsciously held values need first to be illuminated; however, in so doing, I postulate that caution is exercised in order that such exposure does not perpetuate racialising representations. Using the concepts of anchoring and objectification, I propose that highlighting the similarities and shared experiences of a society's members may be a more successful strategy for achieving deep multiculturalism, than focusing on diversity and difference.

Points of View, Social Positioning and Intercultural Relations

“…The foulard affair, starting in France in 1989 with the expulsion of Muslim school children for wearing headscarves and later spreading to other countries including the UK, provides a clear example of the difficulties involved in legitimising social practices (Benhabib, 2002). It also shows why dialogue alone is no panacea for the problems of intercultural encounters, and why dialogue may not be as straightforward as commonly suggested (see Nesbitt‐Larking, 2008a, 2008b; Canefe, 2008; Chryssides, 2008; Condor, 2008; Hopkins, 2008). The reason for this is that individual perspectives are often held as normative according to one's culture, whereas other perspectives may be alien to the extent that they appear odd, illegitimate, or immoral.…”

“…Intergroup contact opens up the possibility of engaging with a different social representation. Under the appropriate conditions, contact engenders processes of re‐presentation (Moscovici, 2000; Chryssides et al., 2009) that enable successful perspective taking (Hewstone et al., 2005) and that lead to positive outcomes as outlined by the contact hypothesis. In these instances, individuals acquire the ability to relate to the other's perspective on the basis of the frame of reference by which that perspective is legitimised.…”

Between Ideology and Utopia: Honneth and Ricoeur on Symbolic Violence, Marginalization and Recognition

“…Societies mourn the end of their monocultural outlook. 77 They are dominated by nostalgic sentiments, reflecting back on what used to be. Overwhelmed by regrets, they look for ways to retrieve a clear sense of identity.…”

“…Chryssides explains: ‚Ways of world making and identities may be feared to be tarnished -further exacerbating a lack of legitimization of the Other. Furthermore, the unconscious nature of ideology, coupled with the unconscious nature of this fear of contamination, may explain the apparent irrationality of ethnocentrism.‛ 80 This fear of contamination fits both the increasing problematization of the cultural non-conformity of minorities on the one hand and the call to protection of the norms and values of a society's own cultural heritage. 81 The increasing gap between the multicultural reality and the social imagination that results is too great and continues to grow at the expense of the social integration of the others.…”

On the Marginalization of Feminist Philosophy

“…4 Somewhat similar claims were also made later in relation to other groups. For example, Paul Nesbitt-Larking (2008) and Alison Chryssides (2008) have discussed dialogic conditions between groups in a state of 'deep multiculturalism'. Both Nesbitt-Larking and Chryssides believe that, in such cases, both groups should attend to the power imbalance between the groups and the way it is likely to affect the dialogue, and suggest that members of dominant groups will have to question their purpose and their core values.…”