AQCI 2
Max-Babilon Crockett
Rex, John (2001) “The concept of a multicultural society” in Guibernau, Montserrat and Rex, John (eds): The Ethnicity Reader.
Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, pp. 205-220
Kymlicka, Will (2001)”Western Political Theory and Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe”, in Kymlicka, Will, Opalski, Magda (eds.) Can
Liberal Pluralism be Exported?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.13 – 103
CENTRAL QUOTATION: “What I have tried to suggest is that a multicultural society must find a place for both diversity and equality
of opportunity. Emphasis upon the first without allowing for the second could lead to segregationism, inequality and differential
incorporation. Emphasis upon the second at the expense of the first could lead to an authoritarian form of assimilationism. Both of
these are at odds with the idea of the multicultural society” (Rex, 217).
ARGUMENT: Although many support pluralism, the society best equipped to handle a diverse population—like England’s—is a
multicultural one. This culture must recognize racial differences, but not for discriminatory purposes. A distinction must also be
made between public and private domains. The parameters of a society’s public domain include law, politics and economy.
Education falls within the public domain only as it concerns judging the abilities of individuals, the transfer of skills, and—to some
extent—transmission of moral values. The transfer of morals must be carefully handled so as not to intrude into the private domain.
The private domain must be left as unadulterated as possible. Diversity within this domain should be encouraged. The protection of
autonomy within the public domain is especially important for minority groups, whose values are not as often reflected within the
public domain.
British culture is defined by class struggle. Social conflict may seem disruptive, but is actually a vital component in establishing a
social order which is in tune with contemporary society. Any interaction between ethnic groups, including conflict, is ultimately
positive. This does not justify the imposing of inequality upon any groups or individuals, however. This must be legally prohibited.
QUESTION: In Rex’s view, one of the primary functions of education is to select individuals for various occupational roles based on
their achievements. Rex claims that “clearly no ethnic minority will object to the selection mechanism being part of the public
domain,” as long as the system provides “equal opportunity to all” (Rex, 213). Although Rex has argued in favor of recognizing
minority distinctions, education falls within the public domain and should be culturally uniform. Treating individuals differently
based on their backgrounds would be pluralist. Could individuals be selected based on their achievements, in an equal and balanced
way? Wouldn’t minorities have a disadvantage, giving them plenty of reason to object to the public domain’s control over
education?
EXPERIENTAL CONNECTION: When I lived in Portland, Oregon, there was a slew of policy making which favored bicyclists. The main
opposition to these policies came from a region of the city traditionally dominated by black Americans. When I was in this area of
the city, I occasionally asked locals about their feelings on these policies. One black man I talked to suggested that black people
don’t ride bicycles. It seemed strange at first, but I realized that cyclists in Portland were indeed almost exclusively white. It seems
that public policy making in Portland was ignoring this racial distinction. Although Rex seems opposed to the idea, taking these kinds
of distinctions into account at the public level could probably have prevented the perpetuation of racial divisiveness.
TEXTUAL CONNECTION: Rex favors the sustained existence of distinct cultures within a society, despite it having a homogenous and
standardized public domain. This is a form of ethnic neutrality, which would actually disenfranchise minority groups. Let us consider
the issue of language within the public sector of a society. “Any language which is not a public language becomes so marginalized
that it is likely to survive only amongst some small elite, or in a ritual form, or in isolated rural areas, not as a living and developing
language underlying a flourishing culture” (Kymlicka, 17). Although Rex is in favor of minority languages being taught in schools, the
lack of their requirement will allow them to fall into disuse. If every minority language were required in schools, then no group will
be disenfranchised, but this would force education to no longer conform to the constraints outlined by Rex.
IMPLICATIONS: The society Rex envisions might be balanced at the public level as long as no clear majority culture exists. It is hard
to imagine that language wouldn’t be a large barrier in this case, however. Designating extra representation to particular groups
would contradict Rex’s position on public sector operation, so minority groups would most likely all be equally unrepresented. This
would not be a huge departure from the current state of world governments. A large amount of transparency at the government
level would be necessary to prevent a ruling class from emerging and dominating the non-unified populace. Lacking political
representation might not sit well with minority groups, but the lack of interference at the private level could be quite favorable to
minority groups. Whereas more homogenous citizenry could experience a national unity due to their sameness, the multicultural
society might be unified in their equal differentness. Any education system that accounts for all minority groups would be
unattainable within Rex’s desired constraints. Perhaps education would have to be predominantly handled within the public
domain.