COPYRIGHT Pine Forge Press, 2008

This material is excerpted from Diversity in America, 3rd ed. (Pine Forge Press, 2008) and is used with permission solely for students registered for this Conflict Resolution Internet course. No other reproduction, distribution, or dissemination is permitted without the written authorization of the publisher.

On several occasions, under sponsorship of the U.S. Information Agency, I have traveled throughout Canada and Europe to give public lectures and media interviews on multiculturalism, as well as confer with officials. Wherever I went, I found enormous interest in the subject--manifested in large audience turnouts and extensive questioning--often to the surprise of U.S. Embassy personnel accompanying me.

One should not be surprised. Those countries are also experiencing a large influx of dissimilar immigrants and the topic of multiculturalism intrigues those societies as it does ours. More to the point, multiculturalism scares many of them just as it does many Americans. Those expressing concern share an anxiety about loss of cultural homogeneity and national identity.

Multiculturalism is taught in academia, debated in government, promoted by ethnic leaders, reported by the media, and discussed among the citizenry. Few are indifferent to a subject with so many proponents and opponents. Some see multiculturalism as the bedrock upon which to build a society of true equality, while others see multiculturalism as a sinkhole that will swallow up the very foundation of American society.

At its very core, the pro- and anti-multiculturalist debate is a polarization of the centuries-old dual American realities of pluralism and assimilation into competing forces for dominance. As this book has shown, pluralism has been a constant reality in the United States since colonial times, and assimilation has been a steady, powerful force as well. There have always been both assimilationist and pluralist advocates, as well as both nativist alarmists and minority separatists.

Resentment and hostility about multiculturalism results from several factors. Rapid communication and televised images have heightened public consciousness of the diversity within American society, but without placing it in the continuity of the larger historical context. Government policies and programs, particularly those dealing with bilingualism, become controversial when viewed as more than transitional aids by both pluralists and assimilationists. Vocal advocates for each position arouse strong feelings in their listeners in suggesting an "either-or" stance of supposedly diametrically opposing forces.

What raises reactions toward multiculturalism to a firestorm level are still other factors. First are the radical positions either anti-immigrant or racist, or else anti-white male or non-integrationist. Another is revisionist history or literary anthologies that downplay "DWMs" (dead white males) or else western civilization, and heavily emphasize women, people of color, and nonwestern civilization. Add furor over political correctness--whether in the guise of speech or behavior codes, curricula offerings, or selective emphases. The result is controversy of a (dare I say it?) white heat intensity.

Multiculturalism is a stance taken by pluralists. Does that mean it imperils the process of assimilation? The answer is, basically, no, but the explanation is a complicated one. Multiculturalism, as I mentioned in the first chapter, is a newer term for cultural pluralism, not a new phenomenon. Large foreign-speaking communities, foreign- language schools, organizations, and houses of worship, even pluralist extremists, are not new to American society. Is, then, the new version not to be feared any more than its precursor, or is this more than a "new suit"? Is this thing we call multiculturalism a clear and present danger? Before we can address this concern, we need to understand exactly what multiculturalism is.

Multiculturalism does not mean the same thing to everyone. Even the multiculturalists do not agree with one another as to what they are advocating. Before we can address the advantages or disadvantages of a multicultural society, therefore, we need to understand these differing viewpoints.

The Inclusionists

During the 1970s, multiculturalism meant the inclusion of material in the school curriculum that related the contributions of non-European peoples to the nation's history. In the next phase multiculturalists aimed to change all areas of the curriculum in schools and colleges to reflect the diversity of American society and to develop in individuals an awareness and appreciation for the impact of non-European civilizations on American culture.

Inclusionists would appear to be assimilationists, but they are more than this. Assimilationists seek elimination of cultural differences through loss of one's distinctive traits that are replaced by the language, values, and other attributes of mainstream Americans. Although inclusionists share assimilationists' desire for national unity through a common identity, they also promote a pluralist or multiculturalist perspective. This finds expression by recognition of diversity throughout American history and of minority contributions to American art, literature, music, cuisine, scientific achievements, sports, and holiday celebrations.

In the 1990s, this viewpoint has perhaps found its most eloquent voice in Diane Ravitch. She too emphasizes a common culture but one that incorporates the contributions of all racial and ethnic groups so that they can believe in their full membership in America's past, present, and future. She envisions elimination of allegiance to any specific racial and/or ethnic group, with emphasis instead on our common humanity, our shared national identity, and our individual accomplishments.

Inclusionist multiculturalists thus approach pluralism not as if it were groups each standing under their own different-colored umbrellas, but of all sharing one multi- colored umbrella whose strength and character reflects the diverse backgrounds but singular cause of those standing under it together.

The Separatists

The group of multiculturalists who generate the most controversy are those who advocate "minority nationalism" and "separate pluralism." They reject an integrative approach and the notion of forming a common bond of identity among both the distinct minority groups and mainstream Americans. Instead of a collective American national identity, they seek specific, separate group identities that will withstand the assimilation process. This form of multiculturalism is the most extreme version of pluralism.

To achieve their objective and create a positive group identity, these multiculturalists seek to teach and maintain their own cultural customs, history, values, and festivals, while refusing to acknowledge those of the dominant culture. For example, some Native Americans raise strong objections to Columbus Day parades, while Afrocentrists downgrade Western civilization by arguing that it is merely a derivative of Afro-Egyptian culture, a claim by the way that is not historically accurate.

Separatist multiculturalists do not want to stand with others under one multi-colored umbrella. Not only do they wish to be under their own special umbrella, but they want to share it only with their own kind and let them know why it is such a special umbrella. One may walk the same ground in the same storm, but shelter is to be found under a group's personal umbrella.

What particularly infuriates the assimilationists about the separatists' position is their concern that such emphasis on group identity promotes what Arthur Schlesinger calls "the cult of ethnicity." In The Disuniting of America (1991), a book widely discussed in both Europe and North America, Schlesinger warned that the Balkan present may be America's prologue.

It is precisely that devastating warfare in the Balkans between Bosnians, Croatians, and Serbs in the former Yugoslavia that has prompted so many voices in Canada, Europe, and the United States against multiculturalists who espouse separate pluralism. The "balkanization of society" is the most common expression that critics of multiculturalism use to suggest the threat to the social fabric supplied by a divisive policy promoting group identity over individual or societal welfare.

When Hispanic leaders from groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) insist upon "language rights," the maintenance of the Spanish language and Latino culture at public expense, the assimilationists warn of an emerging "Tower of Babel" society. When Afrocentrists such as Molefi Asante and Leon Jeffries emphasize the customs of African cultures over those of the dominant culture, their stress on African ethnicity provoke disapproval from critics such as Schlesinger who complain that they drive "even deeper the awful wedges between races" by exaggerating ethnic differences.

Before we address these concerns in the next section, let us first identify a third type of multiculturalist.

The Integrative Pluralists

In 1915, Horace Kallen used the metaphor of a symphony orchestra to portray the strength through diversity of American society. Just as different groups of instruments each play their separate parts of the musical score but together produce beautiful music of blends and contrasts, so too, he said, do the various populations within pluralist America. Kallen's idea of effective functional integration but limited cultural integration, however, was essentially a Eurocentric vision and reality. People of color were mentioned only incidentally and were typically not allowed to sit with, let alone join, the orchestra.

Harry Triandis not only added an interracial component to this view of integrative pluralism in 1976, but he also suggested the majority culture is enriched by "additive multiculturalism." By this he meant that one can get more out of life by understanding other languages, cultural values, and social settings. He hoped for society becoming more cohesive by finding common superordinate goals without insisting upon a loss of black identity, Native American identity, Asian or Hispanic identity. Arguing that mainstream Americans, secure in their identity, need to develop new interpersonal skills, Triandis maintained that the essence of pluralism is the development of appreciation, interdependence, and skills to interact intimately with persons from other cultures. He added:

The majority culture can be enriched by considering the viewpoints of the several minority cultures that exist in America rather than trying to force these minorities to adopt a monocultural, impoverished, provincial viewpoint which may in the long run reduce creativity and the chances of effective adjustment in a fast- changing world.

This argument of cultural enrichment from diverse subcultures found another form of expression in Beyond the Culture Wars (1992) by Gerald Graff. He suggests that exposure to differing cultural views will revitalize education by creating the dynamics of dialogue and debate. As Socrates once encouraged his students to search for truth through intellectual clashes, so too, Graff maintains, can multicultural education help students overcome relativism and become informed about different positions.

Ronald Takaki echoes Graff's idea by recommending that the university become the meeting ground for different viewpoints. American minds, he believes, need to be opened to greater cultural diversity. American history, like America itself, does not belong to one group, says Takaki, and so a change in the status quo is needed. Instead of a hierarchy of power headed by a privileged group, greater cross-cultural understanding and interconnected viewpoints are necessary.

Integrative pluralists envision a multitude of distinctive umbrellas each containing a different group, but with the umbrellas' edges attached to each other, so that collectively they embrace everyone. Guided equally by the many handles of the interconnected umbrellas, one can look around to see where another group is coming from within the framework of the whole.

Cultivated for almost 5,000 years, roses were known to the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. One of our most popular flowers, they now come in over 8,000 varieties. Yet as beautiful and romantic as most people find roses to be, their thorns can hurt.

Roses seem a particularly apt analogy in any discussion about multiculturalism. Both require warmth and nurturing to bloom fully. The stronger their roots, the more they thrive. A variety of species is common to both, yet universal treatment gives vibrancy to all. Both also contain beauty and danger. Focusing only on the rose when reaching for it usually brings flesh into painful contact with a thorn; focusing narrowly on racial or cultural differences often causes the pain of isolation or conflict.

Some proponents of multiculturalism (the separatists) want only to focus on one variety of "rose" among many, while other advocates (the inclusionists) stress the commonality in origin that so many kinds of "roses" share. The third group of multiculturalists (the integrative pluralists) emphasize the overall beauty of "roses" of different colors and varieties sharing the same "garden." The critics of multiculturalism, however, seem only to see its "thorns."

Completely ignoring the thorns needlessly places one at risk. If we look only at the thorns, we miss the beauty of the rose. If we pay heed to the thorns or remove them, as florists so thoughtfully do for their customers, then they cannot hurt us and our appreciation for the rose remains unspoiled. In the pages that follow, we shall look first at the thorns, the negative side of multiculturalism, and then at the roses, or positive aspects.

The "thorns" of multiculturalism are primarily those of immigration, language, culture, and race. Other smaller ones could undoubtedly be named, but these are the most important, for it is in them that some Americans find the threat to American society.

The "Immigrant Thorns"

Make no mistake about it. Continuing high immigration fuels the debate over multiculturalism, for this subject is about much more than simply past contributions or preserving one's heritage. It is about power struggles among groups. It is about economics, jobs, social welfare, and tax dollars.

Concern over large numbers of immigrants arriving each year is likely to instill antipathy in many native-born white and black Americans toward any manifestation of foreign origins through multicultural policies or programs. With over 17 million immigrants arriving since 1971, a sizable proportion of the American public thinks there are too many immigrants in the country. Such anti-immigration sentiments have been heard in the land almost continually since large numbers of Irish Catholics began entering the United States in the early nineteenth century.

Public opinion polls conducted by the Roper Center in 1981 and 1982 found two-thirds of all Americans favored a decrease in immigration. That heavy anti-immigration response should be understood in the context of the 1980-82 recession and the influx of over 200,000 Vietnamese "boat people" and 125,000 Cuban "Marielitos" within this two-year period.

A 1992 Business Week/Harris Poll revealed 68 percent of all respondents saying the present immigration is bad for the country. Forty-seven percent of Blacks and 62 percent of non-Blacks wanted fewer immigrants to come. In the same year a poll of almost 3,000 Americans of Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican descent, conducted by the Latino National Political Survey, found two-thirds agreeing that there were too many immigrants in the United States. Obviously, anti- immigration sentiments are not confined to any one group.

One multi-generational pattern about public response to immigration needs mentioning. Contemporary immigrants of any time period have almost always received negative evaluations by most native-born Americans, many themselves descendants of earlier immigrants once castigated by other native-born Americans. With the passage of time, people view these now "old" immigrant groups as making positive contributions to the cultural and socioeconomic well-being of society, as they transfer their negative perceptions to new immigrant groups.

Numerous anti-immigration organizations have emerged to lobby for restrictive laws to curtail immigration. The largest of these are the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Although these and other anti-immigrant groups vary somewhat in the intensity of their views, they all see the present immigration as a threat to the United States. Their opposition rests upon their belief that immigrants either take jobs away from Americans, often from poor people who are forced onto welfare, or else the immigrants go on welfare themselves. Either way, these groups insist, the immigrants drive up social welfare costs. Other arguments include the assertion that immigrants strain law enforcement resources, contribute to an overpopulation problem through their higher birth rates, and deplete our natural resources.

Some states -- like California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, which are the destinations of 80 percent of all immigrants -- clearly feel the impact of immigration more than other states. In early 1994, the New York State Senate Committee on Cities issued a report claiming that legal and illegal immigrants are costing that state more than $5 billion a year in welfare, education, and criminal justice services. Such reports and claims of high costs to the taxpayer provide ready ammunition for immigration critics.

If multiculturalism means favoring an immigration that places a financial hardship on the American worker and taxpayer, then many Americans oppose multiculturalism.

Foreigners speaking a language other than English has been a thorn in the side of many Americans for over two hundred years. In 1750, Benjamin Franklin expressed concern about the prevalence of the German language in Pennsylvania, and George Washington wrote to John Adams in 1798 against encouraging immigration because, among other things, the new arrivals "retain the language...which they bring with them." No doubt these men spoke not only for themselves, but for a great many of their contemporaries as well.

Such complaints have reverberated down through the generations to the present day. They are now also louder and more numerous, given current migration trends. Two out of every three immigrants speak Spanish and, as a result, over 18 million Americans five years old and over speak Spanish. Another five million speak an Asian or Pacific Island language. Education officials expect over five million children speaking more than 150 languages to have entered the nation's public schools by the time this decade ends.

With the prevalence of so many non-English-speaking youngsters and adults, Americans have done more than complain. For example, Japanese-American S.I. Hayakawa, a former U.S. Senator from California and former president of San Francisco State University, founded U.S. English, an organization dedicated to making English the nation's official language, eliminating or reducing bilingual education programs, and abolishing bilingual ballots, government documents, and road signs.

English-only laws were introduced in dozens of state legislatures in the late 1980s. Although thirteen states had rejected English-only legislative proposals by 1990, eighteen states passed such legislation. Other states were considering similar proposals until a federal judge in 1990 struck down Arizona's state constitutional amendment, ruling that it violated the First Amendment. Advocates of language pluralism expect the judicial ruling to serve as the precedent for other state challenges, but the controversy over language usage continues.

Many Americans are impatient with those unable to speak English. Their contention is that anyone living in this country should speak its language. Believing that our schools provide the "heat" for the melting pot, they are particularly irked about bilingual education programs.

Critics see bilingual programs as counterproductive because they reduce assimilation and cohesiveness in American society, while simultaneously isolating ethnic groups from one another. It is here that opponents use the terms "ethnic tribalism" and "classrooms of Babel" to argue that bilingual education fosters separation instead of cultural unity. When LULAC leaders and others call for language and cultural maintenance programs as public expense, the monolingual adherents see red.

If multiculturalism means English proficiency is not a priority, then many Americans oppose multiculturalism.

The "Cultural Thorns"

Almost 80,000 new immigrants -- about 85 percent of them Asian or Hispanic --now arrive each month in the United States. Ethnic resiliency in language, ingroup solidarity, and subcultural patterns is both sustained and enhanced by the steadily increasing size of each new immigrant group.

Without this constant infusion of newcomers, the twin processes of ethnogenesis and acculturation would inexorably lessen each group's cultural isolation. Group members would gradually learn to speak English and to function more fully within the larger society. Even if such factors as limited education, poor job skills, and discrimination were present to prevent economic mainstreaming, greater cultural fusion would most likely occur over time.

Instead we have large-scale immigration from Asian and Latin American countries revitalizing ethnic subcommunities with their language usage and cultural patterns. Differences in physical appearance, nonwestern traditions and religious faiths -- together with the prevalence of languages other than English, especially Spanish -- suggest to some Americans that unless immigration is significantly curtailed, American culture and society are in danger of fragmenting.

What makes the cultural thorns even sharper is the new ethnic presence in our suburbs. Once the almost exclusive sanctuary of homogenized Americans, many suburbs are now the residential areas of choice for tens of thousands of first- generation Americans of non-European origin, who are mostly Asian. Well-educated business and professional persons, seeking out desirable communities with excellent school systems, have brought racial and ethnic diversity to towns unaccustomed to such a multiethnic mix, sometimes erecting a mosque or Sikh temple with its unique architecture in contrast to other structures in the community.

It is not simply the presence of visibly distinct newcomers that creates tensions. These first-generation Americans live in the community but they are not of it, for they seldom interact with neighbors. Instead they maintain an interactional network within their own group scattered throughout the area. This informal social patterning is reminiscent of other immigrants who have lived in recognized territorial subcommunities but, because these middle-class suburban ethnics live among homogenized Americans, their lack of involvement in community life encourages social distance and grates on others' sensibilities.

Besides a normal first-generation immigrant preference to associate with one's own people, some pragmatic elements deter suburban ethnic social interactions. Often the wife, filling the traditional gender role as keeper of home and hearth, has limited command of English and feels insecure about conversing with neighbors. The husband is usually at work for long hours and has little free time, except to spend with the family.

Joining social organizations is a strong American orientation, as noted by Tocqueville and many others. Possessing neither time nor yet fully acculturated, few Asian Americans get involved in such typical suburban activities as parent-teacher organizations, team sports coaching, or scouting leadership. In time this will probably change, but the present non-involvement maintains Asian social distance from other Americans in their local communities.

In response, suburbanites often view the Asians as not giving, only taking from the community. This reaction is especially acute when Asian American children, reflecting the high motivation and goal achievement instilled in them by their parents, appear overrepresented in garnering awards and recognition in scholarships and music.

If multiculturalism means maintenance of an alien culture and lessening community cohesiveness, then most Americans oppose multiculturalism.

Go to Part II

Go to Conflict Resolution Course Home Page

Go to Internet Readings