Some 20 years ago Kenan Malik wrote, in Prospect magazine, of Sen's 'Identity and Violence'
At the heart of the book is an argument against what Sen calls the communitarian view of identity—the belief that identity is something to be “discovered” rather than chosen.
This follows if either God created us with a plan or else there are what Wittgenstein called 'forms of life' which only intense philosophical investigation can reveal to us.
However, it is also the case that our sense of ourselves is 'intensional', not extensional. I don't know all the things I will say and do. Some of those things may be consonant with my sense of identity. Other things may come as a surprise to me. We discover more and more about 'intensional' objects- i.e. things we can name or point at but which we can't fully specify in all their interactions (in which case Yoneda lemma would apply)- whereas there are some things whose 'extension' is known- e.g. I am the guy wearing this decaying meat-suit which has a particular DNA signature.
“There is a certain way of being human that is my way,” the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor wrote in his much-discussed essay “The Politics of Recognition.” “I am called upon to live my life in this way.” But who does the calling?
Either God or some type of 'philosophical anthropology'- which is what Taylor believed he had a vocation for.
Seemingly the identity itself.
No. A man may be an atheist or he may decide that 'philosophical anthropology' is 'shitting higher than your arsehole'. If God exists or philosophical anthropology aint bunkum then there is something above or beyond human identity which calls us to a higher type of knowledge or understanding.
For Taylor, as for many communitarians, identity appears to come first, with the human actor following in its shadow.
It is certainly true that culture and language existed before we were born and will exist after we are dead. But, we may also the same thing about certain 'intensional' objects- e.g. who we really are or what the true purpose of our lives might be.
Or, as the philosopher John Gray has put it, identities are “a matter of fate, not choice.”
It is my fate to be a elderly Tamil man rather that Beyonce.
Sen will have none of it. “There are two issues here,” he says when I meet him at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was master until returning to Harvard two years ago. “First, the recognition that identities are robustly plural
in which case I am Beyonce just as much as I am a fat and graceless retard.
and the importance of one identity need not obliterate another.
Sadly, Sanity requires one rational and sensible personality to predominate. The alternative is a long spell in a padded cell.
And second, that a person has to make choices about what relative importance to attach, in a particular context, to their divergent loyalties and identities.
But such choices have to be based on reason. I am not Beyonce because I am fat, old, and have a dick. It is important I chose to act like an elderly Tamil gentleman rather than spend my time twerking and shaking my boobies.
The individual belongs to many different groups and it’s up to him or her to decide which of those groups he or she would like to give priority to.”
Sadly, it isn't up to the individual which 'groups' she belongs to. I'm not a member of the Royal Family. I need to prioritize such groups as will actually have me.
We are multitudes and we can choose among our multitudes.
Not even Beyonce can choose to join the Royal Family and not even the Queen, Gorbless'er, can make hundreds of millions of dollars by shaking her money-maker.
Sen is particularly critical of the ways in which communitarian notions of identity have found their way into social policy,
Nobody gives a shit about 'communitarian notions of identity'. Social policy has always been based on what genuinely exists, not what some pedant pulled out of his ass.
especially through the ideas of multiculturalism,
Canada already had multiculturalism which is why Taylor served on a committee on 'reasonable accommodation'- i.e. appeasing the French speaking Quebecois.
and in so doing have diminished the scope for individual freedom.
Very true! Canada is now a Gulag. Fuck you Taylor! Fuck you very much!
“I am not opposed to multiculturalism,” he says. “But I am opposed to the way it has been interpreted.
So, Sen is opposed to diverse ways of interpreting multiculturalism. This is like being intolerant of any interpretation of the word 'Tolerance' which does not involve everybody doing what you tell them to.
There are two basically distinct approaches to multiculturalism.
No. There are infinitely many distinct approaches to a concept which essentially means 'diverse interpretations should exist'. On the other hand, there may be only one correct way of interpreting 'mono-culturalism'.
One concentrates on the promotion of diversity as a value in itself.
In which case it should devote equal resources to promoting conformity as a value in itself. You should donate an equal amount to the LGBTQ alliance as to the Nazi Party and the Pedophile Information Exchange.
The other focuses on the freedom of reasoning and decision-making, and celebrates cultural diversity to the extent that it is freely chosen
So I should be celebrated for quitting my job and freely choosing to be a Beyonce impersonator. The tax payer must make good the fall in my income.
The truth is that 'multiculti' was about 'reasonable accommodation' of minority religions, languages, cultures etc. In the UK the case of Shabina Begum- who sued for the right to wear 'jilbab' in a girl's School- was an example. Sen did not understand this. He lived in a fantasy world where Governments listened to some rival philosopher and then did things he disapproved of.
The way that British authorities have interpreted multiculturalism has very much undermined individual freedom.
This is false. In the Shabina Begum case, the School already permitted hijab. Muslim girls wore shalwar kameez. The Law Lords decided that a person's right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute (i.e. could not be interfered with), but that a person's right to manifest a particular religious belief was qualified (i.e. it could be interfered with if there was a justification). This was perfectly reasonable.
A British Muslim is not asked to act within the civil society or the political arena but as a Muslim.
This is utter garbage. Kenan Malik is Muslim. When has he ever been asked to 'act as a Muslim' by any British institution?
His British identity has to be mediated by his community.”
This simply isn't true. Was Sen, as Master of Trinity, constantly being asked to do puja or yoga or charm snakes as part of his official duties? Perhaps. But Muslims were not pestered in like manner.
What policymakers have created in Britain, Sen suggests, is not multiculturalism but “plural monoculturalism,” a system in which people are constantly herded into different identity pens.
Very true. Britain has strict apartheid type laws.
“Take the case of the Bangladeshis,” says Sen. “Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan was not based on their religion but on their language, their literature and their secular politics.
No. It was based on the fact that West Pakistan wouldn't let the East Pakistani who won the election take over as Prime Minister. Bangladesh is an Islamic Republic just like Pakistan.
At the time of independence Bangladeshis who came here had a very strong sense of Bengali identity.
They still do. Moreover they have come up through hard work and enterprise in the same manner that their country has become much richer than Pakistan or West Bengal. British Bangladeshis have invested very profitably in both the UK as well as in Bangladesh. But then many Indians have also invested in Bangladesh.
But all that disappeared, because the official government classification ignored language, culture and secular politics, and insisted on viewing all Bangladeshis as Muslims.
This is false. The British census asks us about out mother tongue and this enables local councils to make provisions accordingly. Thus you see signs in Gurmukhi script in Southall, where Sikhs predominate, and signs in Bengali in Brick Lane where Bangladeshis have settled.
Suddenly they had lost all identity other than being Islamic.
Very true. Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of Tower Hamlets, now speaks only Arabic. Try talking Bangla to him and you will be met by a blank stare.
And suddenly Bangladeshis stopped being Bangladeshis and were merged with all other Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia.”
Worse still, cruel Britishers crammed them all into the same pair of underpants.
“We have a system in which Muslim organisations are in charge of all Muslims,
Britain has no such system. There are many different Muslim organizations reflecting the different 'mazhabs' and orientations of British Muslims.
Hindu organisations in charge of all Hindus,
Ask a British Hindu to name such an organization. She will not be able to though she may know of an organization for her own caste or sect.
Jewish organisations in charge of all Jews and so on.”
The Jews do have a Chief Rabbi and the Catholics do have a Cardinal. Muslims and Hindus have no such thing or rather too many such things.
This parcelling out of the nation can only weaken civil society.
Very true. All British Jews are blindly obeying their Chief Rabbi- thinks nobody at all. Jews are a small minority in the UK but those talented people can be found all over the political and ideological spectrum. On the other hand, Labor may soon have only one Jewish MP.
Large scale immigration of people speaking a different language and who have lower educational attainment may indeed 'weaken civil society'. However, London seems to have assimilated sub-continental immigrants.
“In downplaying political and social identities, as opposed to religious identities, the government has weakened civil society precisely when there is a great need to strengthen it.”
Perhaps Sen, in his obtuse and obfuscating manner, was saying 'Britain has been soft on Islamic nutters'. That was true enough. But Sen couldn't actually come out and say anything meaningful, let alone anything true.
Multicultural policies, in other words, have allowed mainstream politicians to abandon their responsibilities for engaging directly with Muslim communities.
No. Mainstream politicians met individuals regardless of faith though, in some cases, this meant that they ended up getting stabbed.
Far from promoting a sense of integration, the policy has encouraged Muslims to see themselves as semi-detached.
No. Believing God wants you to stab the kuffar causes you to view infidels with a degree of detachment.
There is much that I agree with in Sen’s broadside against identity politics and the consequences of multicultural policies.
Malik as a Muslim didn't want the nutters to gain the upper hand because they'd soon get round to chopping off his hand on one pretext or another.
Indeed, I have argued on similar lines in various essays in Prospect. There is much to admire, too, in Sen’s stress on human choices and in his insistence on the importance of reasoned reflection.
Sadly Sen does not lay enough stress on the importance of respiration.
So why do I also find his argument unsatisfying?
Because they are stupid shit.
Sen takes for granted that we all possess multiple identities but never defines what he means by an identity.
No definition is required. Sen is saying that he himself thinks that a person who is Muslim is one thing and a person who is Bangladeshi is another. If only East Bengalis hadn't been of the former type, his people wouldn't have had to run away from Dacca. Once you understand that this is a guy with deep seated- quite understandable- hatred for a large class of people then you can see that 'multiple identities' actually means 'Muslims are evil. They should stop being Muslim. Then my family wouldn't have had to run away to West Bengal where the people look down on us as yokels.' Sen can't say what he thinks because he'd lose his job. That's why he has to pretend multiple identities exist.
The result is that it seems to mean just about anything you want it to mean. The same person, Sen suggests, “can be without contradiction, an American citizen, of Caribbean origin, with African ancestry,
till the Police shoot her for reaching for a concealed weapon which turns out to be a mobile phone.
a Christian, a liberal, a woman, a historian, a novelist, a feminist, a heterosexual, a believer in gay and lesbian rights,
there are plenty of contradictions right there. Some Christians think homosexuality is sinful. Some feminists think heterosexuality only exists because of patriarchal brainwashing. Indeed, any two predicates applicable to a person may be said to contradict each other. According to my height, my weight should be much less- in the opinion of my Doctor. I disagree. I think I am not tall enough. My weight is just fine.
a theatre lover, an environmental activist, a tennis fan, a jazz musician, and someone who is deeply committed to the view that there are intelligent beings in outer space with whom it is extremely urgent to talk (preferably in English).”
Sen's mistake is to think these are distinct identities rather than traits or predicates applicable to a person with just one body and thus only one identity.
Economic theory suggests that where a person has different traits or preferences, different mechanisms will exist to cater to them. Thus this guy can pay money and go to the opera while earning money working as a jazz musician. He can watch motor racing on TV while subscribing to an Environmentalist group. He may also join an Internet chat group to talk about aliens. As technology improves, more such mechanisms become available. This does not mean that identity gets fractured. It just means that one can have more diverse preferences or traits.
Indeed she can. But what does that tell us about identity? After all, few people would deny that you could be a Christian and a tennis fan, or that someone with African ancestry could believe in English-speaking aliens.
What is the thing Sen might be saying which people would deny? The answer is that Bengalis ought not to have a Muslim identity. Then his people wouldn't have had to run away from Dacca. To be fair, Sen also objects to Hindus having a Hindu identity. He is an atheist.
The plain fact is that the Brits were able to get Hindus and Muslims to play nice in Bengal. It was the transition to democracy which caused both big famines as well as ethnic cleansing. But this was because Bengalis were bad at governance. As Sen's own career would amply demonstrate, Bengalis were also shit at Social Choice theory and Political Philosophy. But Social Choice theory does not matter. Philosophy does not matter. Governance does matter. It seems Sheikh Hasina can do it well enough. Mamta can't. Sad.
In conflating tastes, aptitudes, predilections, given biological traits, inherited cultural affiliations and acquired political beliefs into a single list, as if they all mattered equally in discussion of identity, is Sen not trivialising the concept of identity and making it more difficult to understand what it is about the contemporary world that makes identity politics both so significant and so problematic?
Yes. But he is doing so for a reason which he can't articulate without getting the sack. That reason is deeply personal. His people were chased out of their ancestral homes by Muslims. Islamic identity is evil. Why can't Sen say this? The answer is that we only have to visit a mosque or just talk to Muslim people to discover that Islam isn't evil at all. It makes people better human beings. Sure, where there is governance failure, there can be a crazy type of political Islam. But where States fail, all sorts of lunatics are going to be running amok killing and raping and looting. The solution is to do proper Economics and to have proper Governance. It isn't to virtue signal or to speak darkly of some metaphysical sin committed by evil philosophers which, in an occult manner, is causing the British Government to prevent Bengali Muslims from speaking Bengali. They are being forced to speak Arabic and ride camels. Fuck you Tony Blair! Fuck you very much!
“I’m not saying that being a football fan is of the same order as being a liberal or conservative,” he replies.
It is more important. The Red Wall may collapse. It may be reconstituted. But football abides all things.
“One could be immensely more important than the other, depending on the person. It is not just that our priorities may vary according to context, but we also have to determine what the nature of the particular context is.
And we also have to determine what the nature of that nature is and then decide what the nature of that nature of that nature is and so forth.
I might decide that it is frivolous to go to a football match when something important like voting is taking place.
Why? You can do both. Voting booths are open throughout the day. In any case, there is such a thing as a postal vote.
So my loyalty to a football club and my loyalty to a political ideal may clash.
Not really.
And I will then have to determine where will I go. We all face this kind of decision.”
Governments go out of their way to make sure these decisions are made easy for us- unless u iz bleck and in a Red State in which case you might be sent to jail for trying to vote.
But this seems a banal way of looking at the problem. After all, what has made the question of identity important is not that individuals do not know how to choose which hat to wear and when, but that collectively hat-wearing fashions have changed.
How does this affect the 'question of identity'? Only if your ethos is that of a person who dresses in an expressive way does the question of hat wearing gain salience. What you wear has a signaling function for others like yourself.
Certain social affiliations have acquired new significance while others have faded away.
Why? There is an economic of 'socio-biological' reason. Affiliations affect economic and reproductive outcomes. Technological changes cause economic changes which in turn alter reproductive outcomes. This changes the relative importance of different affiliations.
In this post-ideological age, people are less likely than they were to define social solidarity in political terms—as collective action in pursuit of political ideals.
The opposite may be the case because political affiliations alter reproductive outcomes. Young men on campuses complain that they have to pretend to be woke to get to sleep around. But this 'Lysistrata strategy' has been around since the time of Adam and Eve!
The question people ask themselves is not so much “what kind of society do I want to live in?” as “who are we?” As political identities have weakened, so people have come to view themselves more in terms of their cultural, ethnic or religious affiliations.
Only if this is what determined their economic and reproductive outcomes.
And they see those identities as given rather than chosen.
Because the economy and the reproductive fitness landscape are given though we may choose to emigrate to some South Sea isle where everybody is having sex all the time while the fish leap into untended nets and coconuts are constantly dropping down into your lap.
What is important, then, is not that people have forgotten that they possess multiple identities. It is rather that political identities have so little significance that people often look elsewhere for meaning—to faith, culture or ethnicity.
All of which have a political dimension.
For an author who places such great stress on the importance of context, Sen makes little attempt to place the debate about identity itself in a social or historical context.
Because he is a shit economist. Also he lives in a fantasy world where Tony Blair was forcing Bangladeshi origin people to speak Arabic and ride camels.
One consequence of this is a skewed notion of choice. Take, for instance, the argument that multicultural policies have imposed upon Bangladeshis the single identity of being Muslim.
It isn't true.
Policies have certainly done this.
No. British Social Policy looked at self-reported data re. ethnicity, mother tongue etc. This helped determine how Local Authority rates were spent to some small extent. But this was a case of assumptions re. 'unmet needs' which were subject to public discussion. At one time, the BBC had a program in Urdu on Sunday mornings. Then more and more Indian origin people told the Beeb that they couldn't understand a word of it. On the other hand, they liked 'Mind your Language' which the elites considered racist.
At the same time, though, many have also chosen to view themselves primarily as Muslim. Why?
Because Islam is a great spiritual religion with a superb juristic and philosophical and hermeneutic tradition. Moreover it promotes family values as well as the virtues of thrift and enterprise and humane and cultured behavior. What's wrong with that? Plenty of Christians and Hindus have found their own faith bolstered by reading the works of Islamic sages and savants.
Partly because as wider political attachments have eroded, so Islam for many has provided a sense of anchorage and meaning in their lives.
The alternative is drugs and bestial sex.
Identity and Violence reads sometimes as if people should only have choice if they make the right choice.
Nothing wrong in that. I don't want to have choices I don't understand. That's why I like a 'graphical user interface' which is pretty much idiot-proof. Smart peeps prefer to have the option to customize things to their liking. Ordinary people want simple 'pre-set' options.
Does Sen really believe that?
“Quite often people are pressured into making choices which are not based on reflection,” he replies.
Sen chose to run away from India with his best-friend's wife. Hopefully, this was because the two fell in love rather than that they came to this decision on the basis of prolonged philosophical reflection.
“It is patronising to think that a person is not capable of better reflection;
Not if such in fact is the case and the aim is not to show one's superiority.
that somehow some people are doomed to think in a peculiarly narrow and limited way.
We are all doomed to think in this way on subjects of which we have little knowledge or understanding. Did anybody in Britain resent being told by the Government to wash their hands in a more thorough way? We understood that COVID was some scary shit. We needed to take every precaution we were capable of taking. Being reminded of such things was helpful and salutary.
We are forced to think that by propaganda,
No. If you travel to a remote forest or desert, the good hearted local people will take you under their wing. They will teach you how to do things in a way which keeps you safe. You can't saunter down to the watering-hole as if you were walking by an ornamental pond in Hyde Park. An alligator might eat you.
Human beings are not brainwashed by propaganda into intuiting a cognitive or epistemic deficiency in another person. They are born with this faculty. When we realize that a person is a foreigner in our City we go out of our way to put them on the right track. This is not 'patronizing'. It is not the result of 'propaganda'. It is the result of hard-wired empathy and theory of mind.
by pressure and a sense of identity.
What pressure are the indigenous people of the mountains or jungles or deserts subject to?
It relates to Karl Marx’s false consciousness.
A term coined by Engels after Marx had died. But it turned out that Marxism was worse for working class people than either Imperialism or Capitalism. False consciousness turned out to be the delusive confabulation of a false theory.
You may have the sense that this is the objective thing to do. But in fact it is illusory.
No. We may underestimate the risk or we may simply be unlucky. But there is nothing illusory about a possible state of the world.
I do have prejudices but my prejudice is the belief that we human beings all have the capacity to think about moral and political issues
and the capacity to stop such thinking once diminishing returns set in, unless we are paid to gas on about that shite
and when we don’t do it, I tend to attribute it to pressure.”
Which is what paranoiacs do. How come BoJo hasn't made me the Duke of Twerkington? It is because of pressure brought upon him by the Nicaraguan horcrux of my neighbor's cat.
I share Sen’s prejudices. I share too his fears about identity politics and the consequences of cultural pluralism. But I also think that the debate about identity is more complex, and less black and white, than he appears to believe.
The debate about identity is one between cretins and imbeciles. It may be very complex indeed but it is still useless. On the other hand in parts of America the debate really was black and white- at least if the cop was white and believed that all black people have plenty of lethal weapons concealed about their person.
Turning to more recent, more scholarly, work on the issue of identity in multi-ethnic democracies, the question arises as to what 'multiple identity' might actually involve. In Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, a Judge in deciding a case may create a right or an obligation for a broad class of people or entities with legal personality. It has been argued that where a person qualifies for affirmative action under more than one heading they should get a superior outcome (intersectionality) e.g. the disabled Black Lesbian should get more than a person who qualifies under only one heading. This is not upheld by law though, no doubt, it happens anyway. However, having a 'dual' identity as both an 'obligations' holder' as well as a member of a 'protected class' can lead to evasion of duties or other prima facie unjust outcomes. Notoriously, the English law of trusts enabled wealthy and powerful noblemen to appear before the court as actually acting for an imaginary child fathered on 12 named matrons of the parish long past child-bearing age! Clearly, equity (both 'horizontal' and 'vertical') requires pruning back such undeserved protection so that people in like circumstances are treated equally and those in superior positions don't get to shuffle out of their obligations. This is ultimately a task for judges and practicing advocates. It is ideographic not nomothetic.
What happens when academics try to give legs to 'multiple identity' as a means to endow democracy with greater stability?
A Dutch researcher Betto Van Waarden writes-
More generally, polyethnic participation rights are supported by Sen’s idea that every individual has multiple identities in which she could flourish.
The problem here is that equity is violated if the same person get's resources under two or more different headings. In a Democracy, there is likely to be a voter backlash.
He specifies that even supposed holistic identities like religion need not confine these other identities. A “Muslim has much freedom to determine what other values and priorities he or she would choose without compromising a basic Islamic faith”.
The law says there is equal freedom but that freedom may be limited by reason of a superior right vested in some other party.
Kwame Appiah notes that this merely proves that there are debates internal to belief systems about their practices rather than that beliefs cannot be comprehensive.
If such debates exist, beliefs are not comprehensive at all. In theology, this is the question of supererogation. It is generally conceded that the thing exists. Beliefs are not comprehensive. Faith is but it is a mystery.
However, by giving this Muslim participatory rights, she could partake in social and professional activities in which her identity might be more determined by these activities than her religion.
Either participatory rights extend to all citizens or there is no democracy in which they participate. Furthermore, religion restricts what one can participate in without incurring sin or being classed as apostate. Activities don't determine identity though they may enable it to endure or to get abruptly terminated. Going for a walk may prolong my life. Taking up cage fighting would quickly end it.
The issue is that she can identify as a salesperson, mother, volleyball player and BritishPakistani, but that if she works in a Muslim shop, raises her child in a Muslim family, plays volleyball in a Muslim sports association and associates with other Muslims rather than other Pakistani and British people, Islam would likely dominate her identity at the expense of the others.
Only in the sense that Britishness dominates the identity of the vast majority of British people. How is this an 'issue'? Must Christians raise their kids to be Confucians?
Sen acknowledges that individuals prioritise identities, but wants to avoid people perceiving their identities as merely singular. Thus, I argue that participation policies allow this person to mitigate her overarching identity somewhat in favour of others.
Cool. Every White family should be forced to raise at least one kid as a Confucian or Voodoo practitioner. Perhaps the Dutch already insist on this.
Making it easier for this Muslim to work in a non-Muslim shop, attend baby classes with other non-Muslim mothers, play volleyball in a non-Muslim sports association and interact more with non-Muslim Pakistanis and Britons allows her to flourish broadly and associate more with these other identity groups.
Why stop there? Why not insist that all smart and successful people marry or adopt at least one crazy rapist or homicidal prostitute? I suppose the author thinks Muslim Pakistanis are stupid and ignorant. Only if they get to mix with nice White prostitutes will they begin to flourish.
In addition to being Muslim, she could identify more easily as a ‘salesperson’, ‘mother’, etc. – rather than as a ‘Muslim salesperson’, ‘Muslim mother’, etc.
This Dutch dude has amazing insights into the minds of brown women! What he isn't saying is that it is only thanks to 'participatory rights' that females have stopped thinking of themselves as brainless cum dumpsters. Some of them have even learned to speak human languages!
In addition to enhancing an individual’s awareness of her different identities,
Darling, you aren't just a cum dumpster. You can have an identity as a person who speaks human language. One day you may even get a job in a shop. Then you can identify yourself as 'cum dumpster salesperson'. Won't that be awesome?
such participation fosters personal relations across dominant identity groups. A mere abstract awareness of sharing a profession, gender, religion or nationality with others does not provide a strong antidote to (violent) exploitation of singular identities by group leaders.
Very true. If women only associated with women they would never learn human language. Group leaders would ensure that they remained mute and comatose cum dumpsters.
However, if the individual interacts with others in these shared identity groups, she
may learn to speak a human language
is less likely to suddenly see these groups as antagonistic ‘others’.
Who will use her as a dumpster for cum.
While the possibility still exists, it is mitigated.
So, she'd be a mitigated cum dumpster. Why can't the Feminists be satisfied with this outcome?
Sen indicates that in categorising groups we often
get our head kicked in if we do it aloud and there are women present. This is because, thanks to participatory rights, many have learned human language.
forget about “the reach and influence of interactions” across borders.
Very true. I sometimes worry that my ginormous dick may have crossed borders and got lots of Chinese women preggers. That's why that country has the world's largest population.
He refers to global exchanges of information and goods, but it equally applies to national situations and people through whom interactions take place.
Sadly, women in this country think I got a tiny dick. I try to tell them it is a grower not a shower. I've got lots of Chinese women preggers though I've never been within a thousand miles of its borders.
More particularly, he indicates: “the translation of that [singularisation] vision into actual application has often taken the form of neglecting the relevance of the person’s plural social relations”.
Not if it is done through the market. Businesses understand that 'plural social relations' are market opportunities.
This comment suggests that relations already exist, but we need to be more aware of them.
If we work for Facebook or whatever, sure. We'd be getting paid a lot of money to exponentially increase participation.
However, increasing isolation based on singular identities reduces relations between members of different groups.
In England, increasing isolation means 'reduced relations' . In Holland, isolated people have more relations with others like themselves. The Dutch are a peculiar people. They isolate themselves in Ann Frank's attic but find themselves surrounded by thousands of Dutch Uncles who scold them vehemently. Then they go stick a finger into a dyke just to get some peace and quiet.
Looking forward, Sen concludes: “the future of multi-ethnic Britain must lie in recognising, supporting, and helping to advance the many different ways in which citizens with distinct politics, linguistic heritage, and social priorities (along with different ethnicities and religions) can interact with each other in their different capacities, including as citizens”.
Sen was wrong. The future of multi-ethnic Britain lay in getting the fuck away from Brussels. We have plenty of BAME politicians at the highest levels. Few are much concerned with 'linguistic heritage'. As for Islam, the thing has become as British as fish & chips.
This “supporting” and “helping to advance” endorses the idea of granting immigrants participation rights,
same as everybody else- sure. Britain is a nation of shop-keepers. We want everybody to buy from us and we will buy from anybody provided we get a good deal.
which allow them to thrive in their plural identities within society and forge relationships with those who share these particular identities.
This happens anyway. If people migrate it is because they want a better life. It is in their interest to make the country they settle in more stable, more secure, and more prosperous.
Sen argues that cultural contacts have dissolved distinct national cultures that immigrants could be required to assimilate to, and that traditional cultures are also obligated to adapt to their pluralising identity.
No. Coercive social mechanisms may become ineffective because of 'Baumol cost disease' (services rise in price relative to commodities) or bureaucratic inertia or other types of Institutional malaise. But this does not mean that 'national culture' has 'dissolved'. Immigrants want a better life and respond to incentives but they themselves create incentives for 'reasonable accommodation' to be a positive sum game.
Consequently, both Sen and Kymlicka refer to such multiculturalism as “hybridising”, as different cultural identities mix and create new ones, and “[m]embers of one ethnic group will meet and befriend members of other groups, and adopt new identities and practices”.
But overall diversity will decrease after a mixing event because of selection pressure.
Multiculturalism through participatory polyethnic rights therefore leads to Sen’s desired society of plural interrelated identities, rather than homogenous or isolated identities.
This assumes that the fitness landscape is flat and featureless. This is foolish. There will always be selection pressure so long as there is scarcity. Greater mobility means less diversity. 'Participatory polyethnic rights' freeze up the social geography and soon become politically and economically disastrous. Indeed, the political class may be disintermediated because of a deadlock based on this foolish ideology. That could entail economic collapse- as in Lebanon- or the dog's breakfast that is Belgian politics.
Thus, Kymlicka argues that immigrants have few rights claims to conserve their culture, because they immigrated voluntarily and desire participatory rather than isolationist rights.
Canada is a special case. The point about 'rights claims' is that they are multiply realizable. It may be that some Canadian Cities will have a Chinese speaking elite. Nobody will mind if they are creating jobs and paying a lot in taxes.
However, with his example of increasingly segregated religious schooling in England, Sen shows that such groups sometimes do demand isolationist rights that could divide citizens into singularised identities and threaten political stability.
Subsequent events have shown that this does pose any great existential threat to Democracy. Once the problem of terrorism was separated out of a general panic about Muslims, things returned to an even keel. Some faith schools improve academic outcomes. Others reduce crime and drug addiction. I believe some ultra-orthodox Jewish schools are worst academically but, I imagine, the are the best for keeping kids away from drugs and knife crime.
Consequently, identity pluralists contend that immigrants should be forced to accept participatory rights that reduce singularisation of identity and allow them to flourish freely in their plural identities.
Immigrants tend to be resilient. What doesn't break them makes them stronger. But it is a waste of resources to create problems for other people based on some stupid type of political philosophy.
Ultimately, identity means survivability. It is the fitness landscape which decides this. Arm chair philosophy in this regard is wholly mischievous. Our verdict on 'Violence and Identity' is kill those who are violent to us and let Identity take care of itself. It isn't really the case that if was our refusal to accept multiple identities or grant participatory rights which caused someone to stick a knife into us before using our arse as a cum dumpster.
