Culture Matters

The SDMS has long held that culture forms an integral component in the development of a people and a nation. Indeed in Culture Matters its editors, Lawrence E Harrison and Samuel P Huntington addresses a difficult question: Are some cultures better than others at creating freedom, prosperity, and justice and answers in the affirmative. Editor Harrison, who pens the book’s concluding essay, states that culture “offers an important insight into why some countries and ethnic/religious groups have done better than others, not just in economic terms but also with respect to consolidation of democratic institutions and social justice.”

Culture in Trinidad and Tobago along with the politics of discrimination is perhaps the single most influential factor that contributes to the disharmony within the nation. Indeed Samuel P Huntington “Clash of Civilisations” observed that “cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.” The Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Inc of Trinidad and Tobago for the past two going on three decades have been advocating the need to replace the Ministry of Culture with that of a more inclusive Ministry of Multiculturalism. 

Lord Bhikhu Parekh in the paper “What is multiculturalism?”  states that “multiculturalism is best understood... as a perspective on or a way of viewing human life. Its central insights are three... first, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organise their lives and social relations in terms of a culturally derived system of meaning and significance. Second, different cultures represent different systems of meaning and visions of the good life. Third, every culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its different traditions and strands of thought.”

Parekh also gives the possible reason for the resistance to the SDMS lobby for a Ministry of Multiculturalism when he states “The dominant group generally welcomes neither, recognition is not given willingly as a gift or an act of grace. It needs to be fought for and involves a cultural and political contestation and sometimes even violence as Hegel stressed in his analysis of the dialectic of recognition and which Taylor’s sanitised version of it ignores.” To this end the SDMS dedicated resources and personnel in studying Multiculturalism Models across the globe. Of the models studied the Canadian Model has been found to one worth studying with the objective of adapting it to Trinidad and Tobago society.

In 1971, Canada was the first country in the world to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy. By so doing, Canada affirmed the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation. The Canadian Multiculturalism State policy is worthy of further examination. The Canadian Multiculturalism policy clearly states that the Government of Canada to

(a) recognise and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

(b) recognise and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

(d) recognise the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada. Of course the concept of Multiculturalism is not without its detractors, and these criticisms should also be discussed. These critics state that Multiculturalism is racism in a politically-correct guise.

They also hold that an individual’s identity and personal worth are determined by ethnic/racial membership and that all cultures are of equal worth, regardless of their moral views or how they treat people. This school of thought also claims that Multiculturalism holds that ethnic identity should be a central factor in educational and social policy decisions. The fear from this section is that Multiculturalism would turn the country into a collection of separatist groups competing with each other for power, and that Multiculturalism is a grave threat to the country. The opponents to Multiculturalism also believe that it is a threat to education as they argue that instead of encouraging students to question their assumptions and the assumptions of their parents and society, multiculturalism demands that students accept blindly what they’re given.

Instead of encouraging reason and independent judgment, multiculturalism demands obedience to authority: The authority of the ethnic group. Lord Bhikhu Parekh however hauntingly reminds us that “Although equal citizenship is essential to fostering a common sense of belonging, it is not enough. Citizenship is about status and rights; belonging is about acceptance, feeling welcome, a sense of identification. “The two do not necessarily coincide. One might enjoy all the rights of citizenship but feel that one does not quite belong to the community and is a relative outsider. This feeling of being fully a citizen and yet an outsider is difficult to analyse and explain, but it can be deep and real and seriously damage the quality of one’s citizenship as well as one’s sense of commitment to the political community.”