Multiculturalism: an unfolding tragedy of two confusions
It all started in Canada. And it started well. In 1971 Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. By so doing, as the web site of the "Canadian Heritage" proudly asserts: "Canada affirmed the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation". Multiculturalism was soon adopted as official policy by most member states of the European Union, with Britain taking a leading part in the growing movement. Indeed, multiculturalism rapidly became the vogue of the day across the world. Those sunny days are now gone, certainly in Europe. The French and the Germans are very doubtful of the wisdom of the approach, and Denmark and the Netherlands have already reversed their official policies. Even Britain is full of misgivings. What, then, is the problem?
The history of multiculturalism offers a telling example of how bad reasoning can tie people up in terrible knots of their own making. The importance of cultural freedom, central to the dignity of all people, must be distinguished from the celebration and championing of every form of cultural inheritance, irrespective of whether the people involved would choose those particular practices given the opportunity of critical scrutiny, and given an adequate knowledge of other options and of the choices that actually exist in the society in which they live. The demands of cultural freedom include, among other priorities, the task of resisting the automatic endorsement of past traditions, when people - not excluding young people - see reason for changing their ways of living.
In terms of human freedom, the merit of diversity must depend on precisely how it is brought about and sustained. If a young woman in a conservative immigrant family in Britain wants to go out with an English boy, her choice can hardly be faulted on grounds of multicultural freedom. In contrast, the attempt by her guardians to stop her doing this (a common enough occurrence) is hardly a multicultural move, since it wants to keep the cultures separate in (what can be called) a "plural monocultural" form. Yet it is the parents' prohibition that seems to strike the most sympathetic chord with the dedicated "multiculturalists" today.
The history of multiculturalism in Britain is interesting to examine in this context. The positive phase of multicultural integration in Britain has been followed by a phase of separatism and confusion. Post-colonial Britain began wonderfully well in trying to integrate immigrant communities through nondiscriminatory treatment in healthcare, in social security and even in voting rights. The last was a contribution of the visionary policy of having a Commonwealth of Nations, itself a multicultural initiative with distinctly British leadership, which has made it possible, among other things, for all residents who are citizens of the Commonwealth (including almost the entire non-white immigrant population in Britain) to participate in UK elections. In contrast to the truly unequal history of immigrants in Germany, France and, indeed, in much of Europe, there is much to celebrate in the British achievement of giving legal immigrants their economic, social and political rights as rapidly as possible.
The blemishes, for example in policing, that existed and were clearly linked to the riots in 1981, particularly in Brixton and Birmingham, were addressed in a further visionary move led by Lord Scarman, who headed an inquiry into the riots and blamed "racial disadvantage that is a fact of British life". Not all the concerns noted in the Scarman report have been eradicated (race can still make a difference, just as class and gender continue to do), but there has been persistent engagement, beginning well before "multiculturalism" became a popular slogan, with trying to achieve the treatment of all British people as equals, irrespective of "their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation" (to quote that landmark Canadian phrase cited earlier).
The tragedy is that as the slogan of multiculturalism gained ground, the confusion regarding its demands also became increasingly influential. This is essentially a story of two confusions. The first is the confusion between cultural conservatism and cultural freedom. Being born in a particular community is not in itself an exercise of cultural liberty, since that is not an act of choice. In contrast, the decision to stay firmly within the traditional mode would be an exercise of freedom, if indeed the choice was made after considering other alternatives. In the same way, a decision to move away - bya little or a lot - from the past be???-haviour pattern, made after reflection and ???-reasoning, would also qualify as the exercise of multicultural freedom.
The second confusion lies in ignoring the fact that, while religion may be an important identity for people (especially if they have the freedom to choose between celebrating or rejecting inherited or attributed traditions), there are other affiliations and associations - political, social, economic - that people also have reason to value. Nor is religion all there is to culture. The Can???-adian phrase explicitly refers to language in addition to religion, and it is worth remembering in that context that, although Bangladeshis in Britain are now officially categorised simply as "British Muslims", the Bangladeshis fought for - and earned - independence not for a religious cause, but for linguistic freedom and secular politics.
British government leaders now frequently address each separated group of co-religionists as a "community" of its own, to be governed by its own customs (of course, with the additional demand that religious politics should take a "moderate" form). Religious spokesmen of immigrant groups apparently have a higher standing in British official reckoning - and greater access to the corridors of power - than ever before. New "faith schools" are being set up with government encouragement and support, paying greater attention to a rather mechanical religious "balance" as desired by the so-called "community leaders" than to the essentials of schooling and the training of children on how to reason freely.
Also, the partitioning role of separated schooling, which has done much to sow discord in Northern Ireland in the political distancing of Catholics and Protestants (by instilling a sense of divisive categorisation assigned at infancy) is now being allowed and, in effect, encouraged to sow alienation in another part of the British population.
What is needed now is not an abandonment of multiculturalism, nor the dumping of the goal of equality irrespective of "racial or ethnic origins, language, or religious affiliation", but the overcoming of the two confusions that have done so much harm already. This is important both because freedom should count, but also for avoiding the French-style rebellion of the disadvantaged and the growing menace of violently separatist thoughts, in ascendancy in Britain, that sometimes spill into barbarously brutal deeds. It is important to recognise that the early success of multiculturalism in Britain has been linked with its attempt to integrate, not separate. The current focus on separatism is not a contribution to multicultural freedoms, but just the opposite.
The writer, who received the 1998 Nobel Prize for economics, is Lamont university professor at Harvard University and former Master of Trinity College, Cambridge; his latest book is Identity and Violence (Penguin/WW Norton)
多元文化主义的悲剧
一
切都始于加拿大，而且开局不错。1971年，加拿大成为全球第一个将多元文化主义(multiculturalism)作为官方政策的国家。正如加拿大文化遗产部(Canadian Heritage)网站骄傲地宣称的那样，这样做，“加拿大确认了所有加拿大公民的价值和尊严，而不论其肤色、种族、语言或宗教信仰。”不久后，欧盟(EU)多数成员国也将多元文化主义纳入官方政策，而英国在这场声势壮大的运动中发挥了带头作用。的确，多元文化主义当时在全球迅速成为时尚。那些阳光灿烂的日子已经过去，尤其是在欧洲。法国人和德国人如今对这种方式明智与否深表怀疑，丹麦和荷兰已经逆转了其官方政策。甚至连英国也充满了疑虑。那么，问题何在？
文化自由是个人尊严的根本
多元文化主义的历史提供了一个生动例证，说明糟糕的推理如何能够使人们作茧自缚。文化自由是个人尊严的根本所在，其重要性必须与对各种文化遗产形式的赞美和保护区分开来，不管相关人士在有机会进行严密审查，并对其所处社会存在的其它选择有足够了解的情况下，是否会选择那些特定的做法。文化自由的要求包括：当人们（不排除年轻人）看到有理由改变自己的生活方式的时候，能够抵制对“传统”的自动认可。
就人类自由而言，多元化的价值必须取决于其产生和维持的方式。如果英国一个保守移民家庭的年轻女士想跟一个英国男孩出去，从多元文化自由的角度来看，她的选择无可指摘。相反，如果她的监护人阻止她这样做（这种事时常发生），就很难算作多元文化行为，因为这是想以（姑且称作）“复数的单一文化”(plural monocultural)形式使各种文化保持分离。然而，似乎正是家长们的这种阻挠，拨动了当今多元文化主义者的同情心弦。
在此背景下审视英国多元文化主义的历史很有意思。英国多元文化融合的进步阶段之后，是一个分离主义和混淆的阶段。后殖民时期的英国，试图通过在医疗、社会保障乃至选举权方面的无差别待遇，将移民社区融合在一起，这起了一个极好的开头。在选举权方面享受无差别待遇，要归功于建立英联邦(Commonwealth of Nations)这一具有远见的政策。英联邦本身就是带有鲜明英国领导特征的多元文化产物，它让英联邦公民身份的所有英国居民（包括英国几乎所有的非白种移民人口），都能参加英国大选。与德国、法国以及欧洲多数国家移民的不平等历史相比，英国在尽快赋予合法移民经济、社会及政治权利方面的成就，确实可圈可点。
斯卡曼勋爵(Lord Scarman)领导的另一项具有远见的举措，解决了英国当时存在的一些缺陷，如警务方面的缺陷。这些缺陷与1981年的英国暴乱有关，特别是在布里克斯顿和伯明翰。斯卡曼勋爵负责对暴乱进行调查，并谴责了“英国生活中现实存在的种族弱势”。斯卡曼报告中提到的问题，没有都得到彻底解决（种族仍可能造成差异，正如阶级和性别一样），但人们一直在不懈努力，甚至远在“多元文化主义”成为流行口号前已开始行动，努力实现所有英国人的平等待遇，不论“其肤色、种族、语言或宗教信仰”（引述前文援引的加拿大的划时代宣言）。
出生于某个族群，本身不是对文化自由的行使
悲剧在于，随着多元文化主义口号的普及，对其要求的认识不清，也造成了越来越大的影响。其本质上是两个混淆。首先是文化保守主义和文化自由之间的混淆。出生于某个族群，本身不是对文化自由的行使，因为这里不存在选择。相反，坚守某种传统模式的决定，如果确实是在考虑过其它选择之后作出的话，就是在行使自由。同样，在经过反思和推理之后，决定放弃――略微或很大程度――过去的行为模式，也是在行使多元文化自由。
第二个混淆在于忽视了一个事实，即虽然宗教也许是人们的一个重要认同（特别是如果他们可以自由选择赞美或拒绝自己继承或被归入的传统），但还有其它一些政治、社会、经济层面的联系，人们也有理由对其加以重视。而且文化的范畴超越宗教。除宗教之外，加拿大的宣言还明确提到了语言。在这方面，我们有必要记住，尽管英国的孟加拉人目前被正式地简单归类为“英国穆斯林”，但孟加拉人争取――并赢得――独立，不是出于宗教原因，而是为了语言自由和世俗政治。
英国政府领导人现在频繁地将信奉同一宗教的族群，称为该族群自己的“社区”，应按照自己的风俗来管治（当然，额外的要求是宗教政治应采取“温和的”形态）。移民团体宗教发言人在英国官方心目中的地位――以及进入权力中心的可能性――显然比以往任何时候都高。
在英国政府的鼓励和支持下，新“宗教学校”不断兴建，它们更关心的，是所谓“社区领袖”希望达到的相当机械的宗教“平衡”，而不是学校教育的基本要求，也不是对儿童自由思考能力的培养。
此外，分开接受学校教育造成的分裂作用，在很大程度上埋下了北爱尔兰天主教徒和新教徒不和的种子（从小灌输鼓励不和的分类感），但这样做目前已得到允许，而且实际上还受到鼓励，以埋下另一部分英国人口不和的种子。
着眼于融合，而不是分裂
目前需要的并不是放弃多元文化主义，也不是抛弃无论“肤色、种族、语言或宗教信仰”、人人平等的目标，而是要克服已经造成大量伤害的两个混淆。这很重要，不仅因为应该考虑到自由的重要性，而且还因为它能够避免弱势群体的法国式起义和极端分离主义思潮日益增长的威胁。这种在英国抬头的思潮，有时会演变为极度野蛮残暴的行为。重要的是，我们应认识到，英国多元文化主义早期的成功是因为它着眼于融合，而不是分裂。目前对分离主义的关注，不会促进多元文化自由，而只会适得其反。
本文作者是1998年诺贝尔(Nobel Prize)经济学奖得主，哈佛大学(Harvard University)拉蒙特(Lamont)大学教授，英国剑桥大学(Cambridge)三一学院(Trinity College)前任院长；他最新一部著作是《认同与暴力》(Identity and Violence)，企鹅出版社(Penguin)/WW诺顿出版社(WW Norton)。
