Psychology of Multiculturalism: Identity, Gender, and Minority Rights

Introduction to Multiculturalism

This paper examines the issue of multiculturalism, its development, its use by society, and the ways in which the field of psychology has reacted to and engaged with it. First, a brief history of the meaning of multiculturalism is presented; next, a discussion of the work of five influential authors—in particular Kymlicka, Taylor, and Gerd—who have shaped research about multiculturalism is offered; and finally, the psychology of multiculturalism is discussed from the viewpoint of how multiculturalism has been embraced by psychologists.

Defining Multiculturalism: Equality, Assimilation, and Identity

What exactly is multiculturalism? Everyone holds a different conception of the word, and consequently many different meanings float around in both the literature and in popular discourse. Multiculturalism has gained particular significance in the United States, where severe cases of arbitrary racism—obviously opposed to multiculturalism and to the dictates of the American Constitution—have led to the term being defined largely in legal terms. These legal definitions and statutes have then been used to shape policy implementation in areas such as education (Makedon, 1996).

Following this definition, largely enshrined in legal terminology and based on the American Constitution, multiculturalism roughly equates to "equality for all," meaning that all people—of whatever age, sex, or race—should be given a fair chance within society as a whole, whether in employment, education, or access to a decent standard of living (Makedon, 1996).

Under other definitions, multicultural identity can be seen as an expression of freedom and cultural values, under which everyone is able to express their cultural beliefs and that expression will be accepted. Many argue that true multiculturalism emerges when people from different cultural backgrounds can come together and assimilate with other cultures (Makedon, 1996).

This is, unfortunately, where the problem with the term "multiculturalism" arises. For people of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States, there is a sense that "multiculturalism" actually means "assimilation"—that is, adherence to a set of cultural values that are predominantly white. In practice, then, "multiculturalism" may be little more than racism in disguise: society effectively says, "We recognize that you are of Latin American descent and we respect that, but we would prefer it if you could join with other cultures"—where "join" means "become like us or fail."

It is worth noting that white American culture has become so dominant that the world is increasingly "Americanized." Coca-Cola bottles appear everywhere, and the lifestyle of affluent Americans is widely envied, with rising obesity rates tied to sedentary consumer habits spreading across many Western European countries. Americans are among the most materially privileged people in the world, with a comparatively stable economy and sufficient resources to sustain most of the population.

Multiculturalism can therefore be understood as the gradual erosion of the distinct ethnic territory of citizens within a pluralistic democracy. At the social level, this is reflected in the psychological changes that occur within individuals when they encounter multiple cultures. It has been argued that as a result of traumas suffered as a member of a minority group, an individual may disavow their ethnicity and enter the broader multicultural mainstream in order to avoid being perceived as part of a traumatized community (Makedon, 1996). This phenomenon, labeled "escape from the traumatized self" by psychologists, is well documented in ethnic and assimilation studies, in which people have been shown to abandon their native culture in favor of the dominant white culture (Makedon, 1996).

Under this definition, it appears that one can "pick and choose" one's culture and moment of conversion to another cultural identity. Multiculturalism, in this sense, suggests that birth has little impact on cultural heritage; rather, one is free to choose which culture to belong to, instead of having that identity ascribed on the basis of group affiliation or physical characteristics (Makedon, 1996). This reasoning is questionable, however, especially when one considers that in most public and private sector organizations, the great majority of senior employees are white. The dominant culture in "multicultural" United States society remains white. Such observations have led many to argue that multiculturalism is little more than racism in disguise—a wolf in grandmother's clothing: "We are going to make you feel safe and wanted, but underneath, we will consume you unless you change, and even if you do change, we will not fully accept you." The view of multiculturalism as a modern expression of political principles that allow for both majority rule and respect for minority rights (Makedon, 1996) is acceptable in principle and makes for agreeable dinner-party conversation among members of the dominant culture; but until there is true equality within U.S. society, multiculturalism will remain largely a political ideal.

Theoretical Perspectives: Kymlicka and Taylor

Kymlicka's landmark 1995 text Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights focuses on the theory of multiculturalism and the issue of group rights, arguing that liberalism is inadequate because it is too concerned with individual rights at the expense of group rights. Kymlicka draws primarily on examples from Canadian politics and society to illustrate his central point: that the culturally diverse society in which we live has made issues of identity and rights central to understanding how such societies can coexist. One definition Kymlicka frequently highlights is that of multiculturalism as "the inclusion of perspectives of women, minorities, and non-Western cultures in recognition of the increasingly diverse character of life in modern Western societies" (from The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism). Kymlicka is largely supportive of the way multiculturalism offers a defense of individual rights, yet his tone is notably cautious regarding how collective rights can be translated into a fair, equal, and just society; his ultimate aim is to elaborate fundamental principles of justice.

Many scholars have argued that Kymlicka's definition of culture is flawed. He appears to define culture as "a nation, that is, a historical community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture" (McDonald, 2004). This definition dismisses the problems endured by many subcultures—including gay people, the disabled, and the poor—by treating their difficulties as arising from within their own communities and therefore outside the scope of his analysis. As a result, many critics have dismissed Kymlicka's theories as overly idealized (McDonald, 2004).

The issue of multiculturalism is therefore fraught with difficulties stemming from the challenge of producing workable, inclusive definitions for basic concepts such as "culture." Kymlicka's book was significant in that it stimulated debate about multiculturalism, as much for what it omitted as for what it contained.

Other authors, such as Charles Taylor, in his 1994 book Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, reinforce the difficulties of implementing multiculturalism in policy. Marginalized groups tend, for the sake of administrative convenience, to be lumped together into a single cultural category, which defeats the implicit purpose of multiculturalism. Taylor's politics of recognition was a call to arms for politicians and policy makers alike: he argues that culture and identity are formed largely on the basis of the recognition—or non-recognition—we receive from others. On his opening page he states, "Due recognition is not just a courtesy we owe people: it is a vital human need." Later in the book, he observes that the multiculturalism debate often reinforces the negative psychological effects of belonging to a minority culture rather than providing any genuine respite for members of those communities.

As noted above, white North American culture is dominant in the United States, yet the composition of the North American population is changing as increasing numbers of Hispanics, Latin Americans, Asians, and other racial groups have immigrated into the country (Saeman and Thomas, 2004). Hispanics and Latin Americans now hold 21 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 39 seats are held by African-Americans (Saeman and Thomas, 2004).

Conclusion

The issue of multiculturalism is recognized by many as necessary and indeed vital in Western societies that have experienced large-scale immigration of diverse racial and ethnic groups. However, multiculturalism can create more problems than it solves. As this paper has shown, it has been defined largely in legislative terms in the United States—legislation that tends to protect the status quo of white North Americans rather than to effect genuine societal change that would open doors to people of non-white ethnic and racial backgrounds.