Multiculturalism often confuses the rules of social conduct, which are socially constructed, with the laws of nature, which are not. It wants to transfer its discovery that there’s no one right cuisine or musical tradition or wedding custom to questions about reality, treating all points of view equally not just in the obvious cases of cosmology and evolution (yes the Hindu and creationist myths are lovely—but wrong), but also in the cases of astrology, ghosts, and UFOs. These are all empirical questions (answerable according to evidence)—but multiculturalism sometimes thinks it’s more important not to hurt marginalized people’s feelings than to think critically. It’s not always easy to ascertain the nature of reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s only one reality. Multiculturalism often confuses the fact that people relate to reality subjectively with a new-age notion that there is more than one reality. To say there is more than one reality is to try to protect people from the experience of being incorrect by positing some other plane on which their ideas would, if that plane existed, have merit. But there is no other plane. Instead of protecting people from finding out that they are wrong about some things, we ought to be trying to remove the sting of being wrong. After all, being wrong, getting feedback, and self-correcting is the only way to become better at anything
In this particular respect, multiculturalism is unscientific. Science is a human subculture that privileges evidence over feelings, posits a single reality, and draws its unparalleled strength for generating useful ideas about how the world works from its self-corrective functions. I have often said that the entire scientific attitude can be summarized in a single word: oops. This word conveys the desirable attitude towards one’s own mistakes—they are recognized; they are not devastating. Multiculturalism often treats people like fragile crystal when it coos at and accepts whatever drivel they spout, and some people rather shockingly seem to prefer being told they already know everything to getting useful feedback and learning how to get better at whatever they’re doing. So, yes, perhaps it’s because I’m a white guy that I think people need to stop being so intellectually dainty, but that doesn’t make me wrong. When people face a daunting learning curve, as they do in graduate school or starting a skilled career, they can either start trudging up the mountain or look for a shortcut. Multiculturalism all too often is that shortcut. It tells the person that the world is unfair when in fact it’s often just difficult.
Instead of examining and questioning power in groups, multiculturalism—because it is a human, all-too-human enterprise—tends to become a power structure of its own. All animals are equal, wrote Orwell, but some animals are more equal than others. He was mocking the way revolutionaries tend to become tyrants and bureaucrats once in power by twisting the catchphrases of the revolution to a new purpose. Professional multiculturalists are always going on about categories—even the American Psychological Association tells you that you have to put your clients in various categories, from disability to race, from ethnicity to nationality, so you can decide if you’re competent to treat them. Supposedly, you get competence by attending workshops that lump all the people in a category together, which, if only slightly reframed, would be blatant exercises in racism, homophobia, sexism, and xenophobia. Professional multiculturalists use their categorizations of people to justify their own positions of power, just as others with power justify their power with their own categorizations.
Michael Karson, Ph.D. 
The APA doesn’t tell us to categorize simply to help US decide our competence to treat them. It’s supposed to be a collaborative exploration of cultural complexities so we can give our clients true informed consent, e.g. I am a white male with certain biases, who may represent certain things to you, but I make space for this as a point of discussion in our time together. As with many factors, this may be a deal breaker for a culturally different client and that’s when you’d refer out based on competence. In my experience, this process often strengthens the therapeutic relationship.
Also I would say that science has not yet cornered the market of allowing mistakes. True multiculturalists are quite adept at allowing “oops” moments to unfold as they should: with recognition for what they are. If you feel you are not allowed to make mistakes just because someone might point out those mistakes, I think that’s on you as an individual.
From one white guy to another, it sounds like you’re making your disagreements with multiculturalism your own personal shortcut. I know I’ve done it plenty, so I’m not judging. Just saying.
The APA Ethics Code states, “2.01 (b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research, psychologists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation, or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies.”
If you’re seeing a conversation in there with the client, and not an obligation on the psychologist to get training etc. based on the group membership of the client, then you’re seeing things that aren’t there.
It may be that “true multiculturalists” are adept at saying oops, but it’s a specious argument to defend multiculturalism by saying that any multiculturalist who doesn’t behave in a way you approve of is not a true multiculturalist. More importantly, the issue is whether the culture of multiculturalism promotes the deconstruction of categories and the acknowledgement of mistakes. The culture of science sure does; it’s its defining characteristic.
And then you go on to do exactly what I’m complaining about! You link my criticisms to my race and sex!
Well then keep complaining. I won’t comment any more, except to say that a better solution to the problem of multiculturalism promoting categorization is getting the training recommended by the APA rather than saying it’s unscientific therefore irrelevant. And I didn’t link your criticism to your race and sex, you did.
Try complaining in a multicultural training and see what happens. (More on complaining in my next post.) I hope you don’t stop commenting, as I value your perspective.
During a multicultural training at my graduate school I once said something to the effect of, “we need to treat multicultural discussions like a side of beef in a Rocky movie, not like some fragile wine glass.” Needless to say the response I received was about as favorable as the reviews of Rocky V. The aghast looks and confusion from other people in the group plus the rest of the training I received convinced me that I’m only “allowed” to make such comments because of my status. And, apparently, either my status or my comments were unwanted or irrelevant. Rather than engage in a critical investigation, a thoughtless categorization served to silence, alienate and isolate. I don’t think this is what the APA is promoting.
I love this story, partly because of the underlying race relations in the movie you referred to. I’m genuinely not sure what the APA is promoting.
Coming a little late to the party as usual (typical for my Greek male status). Michael, I’d like to offer my two cents after having followed your blog since you started posting. At the core of the debate on multiculturalism (and perhaps I dare say the parallel process just witnessed between your exchange with Bill above) is what kind of philosophy one “chooses” to ascribe to. I put choice in quotes here because that issue has also been up for debate for quite a while.
Is Aristotle or Plato by your nightstand? Is Jesus or Nietzsche your favorite Superhero? Newton’s or Einstein’s the physics and philosophy of “choice”? These guys argue very different points (for the most part), kind of like you and Bill on multiculturalism and the APA. The natural and almost instinctive thing to do when faced with contrasting ideas is to say, “Who’s right and who’s wrong?” It is a fair enough question, although not a very good one. The reason is because soon you realize you can’t put your finger on what’s right and wrong, and then the inherent risk is it often becomes a pissing contest if you start personalizing. But we do this all the time and that’s also okay! First we get our measuring sticks out and measure. Then we personalize the results and feel either inferior or superior, accordingly. If you are secure enough in yourself you can deal with the first, if you are humble enough you won’t make much of the second either.
I think comparison is a necessary evil. Advocates of multicultural theory in my eyes don’t do a very good job at addressing the issue of cultural comparison. They kind of avoid it like the plague. They say don’t use your yardsticks because you are probably biased if you are coming from a place of privilege on any given status (male, White, middle-class, straight, able-bodied, etc.) and your yardsticks will probably offend others dearly because you can’t “get it” how it sucks to be a minority status, so just put the yardsticks aside and be respectful and gentle.
I disagree. Travis you nailed it on the head. If Rocky used kid gloves the movie (and the fight) just wouldn’t be worth watching. Our bias and privilege (or lack thereof) are probably the only meaningful and honest things we bring to the table. Sometimes you got to compare and sometimes you got to put the yardsticks aside (in the same order probably). I haven’t figured out the balance yet for this process (when to get the yardsticks out, when to put them away, when to get them out again) and I don’t that can even be done cleanly. No need to really, it’s a dance and you step on some toes the first time, then you get it right the second time around (or sixth, or tenth). In the Greek constitution there is an attempt to ‘operationalize’ this process. Something about one person’s rights and claims ending where another person’s begin. I think that’s hard to grasp and not very practical also, so until I figure it out I ll just trust my own bias and like Michael say “oops” every time I cross another’s boundary, then reassess the dynamic and try to do it a little better the next time. That is how respect is earned. And truth is you have to overstep some boundaries to find out where they really lie. Not to mention it is so boring and dry to always stay within the lines. In my country there is also an idiom about people drowning in a teaspoon of water. Happens all the time when you are afraid to make mistakes and tiptoe around the issues.
Moving on, to resolve the qunandrum of who is right and who is wrong about multiculturalism, one has to go abstract and ask a different, perhaps better question. “Is there such a thing as right and wrong in the first place?” In other words, do you believe in axioms lurking somewhere out there in the universe (i.e., perfect ideas, facts, laws, sciences, systems, societies, cultures, etc.) which inform categorical judgment and classification of behavior (i.e., Plato by your nightstand), or are the roadmaps to life subjective interpretations (got to love Nietzsche); projections of our ego on each context and level ego operates within? I can’t say as well, but the funny part is sometimes two opposing schools of thought can both be quite valid at the same time! Not at first glance (easy level), but if you take things up a notch (meta-level) you may see that for some contexts (my living room) apple falls from hand straight down to floor and for some others (International Space Station) apple just floats around when leaving hand. Doesn’t mean an axiom or theory is wrong. Quite the opposite, exceptions to rules typically serve as the best form of validation.
Trying to figure right and wrong in multicultural discussions (like any debate) is often an exercise in futility (dog chasing tail), not to mention vanity for those who think they ll get it right. Icarus once thought he could fly to the sun, he strapped on a pair of wings and off he went. We all know the end of that story. So I hope I m humble enough and try to figure this one out without crashing and burning. Here goes. I think multiculturalism by definition is a pretty good lens to look at the world with. At least that’s what it intends to be. It allows people to be different and it respects diversity and heterogeneity. It evolved in an attempt to provide an operating manual for the context which it is designed for (a multicultural society like the United States). But it is a theory, and like any other it has limitations. In the same light, where I come from my culture’s respect for homogeneity also has its merits and limitations. In my experience, the last few decades cultural contexts have been more fluid than ever before in this world. Oppressed minorities became majorities, privileges (and biases) shifted, and people who used to be oppressed before started acting in the same oppressive way when they got to be majority, just as the previous majority acted before them. Hmmm, wonder if this constant is determined by some kind of axiomatic law? Anyway, Michael I think that is part of your point of this blog, and if it is I do agree with your commentary. Bill I think is also right about what he argues, because it sounds like to me he stays true to the purity of multicultural theory.
To bring this all together. Problem for me was when multiculturalism got off the ground and started to take momentum. It got folks excited because good theories get good people excited. Christianity followed the same path, like other great ideas. Using the same analogy, there seems to be a tipping point when good ideas become dogma (a dangerous thing). These ideas also lose much of their luster right around that point for those who don’t conform easily. Kind of like the new Rihanna song playing on the radio over and over, first you can’t get it out of your mind and keep signing along, then you start hating it because the song is stuck in your mind and is being played everywhere you go. You can’t get it out of your mind even if you try. Got to set it aside and come back to it much later to appreciate the value. In my opinion, multicultural theory lost some of its appeal in my own eyes the very moment it became the next “IT” thing. When we set it aside and come back to it later, it will do its job and serve us fine, but it will mislead us if it is the new measuring stick for all.
By the way, I want to make it clear that I think this occurred because of people (and their egos) using the theory and not because of the theory itself. The theory is just a tool. Its what you do with the tool that makes the difference. Kind of like guns (to comment briefly on the Aurora shooting). Guns don’t kill people. People kill people using guns.
Michael, I ll offer some more feedback and ideas when I get a chance. Looking forward to your next posts.
Ioannis
I agree, and find myself wanting to enhance some of your points. You are spelling out the reasons I started this blog with a statement that I am trying to find a way to be a white man in a multicultural discussion that is neither guilt-ridden nor indifferent. (I also note that all six philosophers you mention are white guys.) And yes, it’s multiculturalism–or really, power theory–that equips me with what I need to call out multiculturalism’s treatment of white guys.
One thing you’ve said that I disagree with is that white guys can’t “get it” how it sucks to be minority status. Every human has been sitgmatized; every human doesn’t like it. I also think that “minority status” changes from situation to situation, and to label white, straight guys as owning a status of being privileged is an arbitrary punctuation whose purpose is usually either to put down white guys, to promote people who are not white guys, or to fit in by acting guilt-ridden. A white guy is closer to understanding the experience of another white guy than the experience of, say, a black lesbian only if you think that the white guys necessarily share something that the black lesbian doesn’t (besides anatomy). Sure, you can say neither of the white guys has been seriously threatened while walking down the street in a particular neighborhood, but changed as needed for circumstance, the white guys have had very similar experiences in other contexts. If one is flexible about the details, then we all know what it’s like to be categorized by race and sex and treated badly, even threateningly.
One goal of my blog is to remind myself and other people that our dislike of being stigmatized leads us to forget such experiences if we can. This often leads white guys to accept it when they are characterized as universally or generally privileged. It’s unmanly to pout! Our society, in my opinion, is better served if we remember our own marginalized experiences, if we recall that we felt then the way the black lesbian feels reading about Prop 8.
I think you missed that part of me being sarcastic about the “get it” piece. I m sure a Black lesbian and a White straight guy like myself have so much to share and relate to (and actually speaking from personal experiences in life and in therapy). Its called the human condition!
ps. wasn’t Jesus Middle-Eastern? So not White, in terms of complexion at least 🙂
Aarggh. It’s not just that I missed it that bothers me, but that I missed it from someone I think of as witty, circumspect, and humorous. It’s a sign of how embattled I can feel in a multicultural discussion!
The opening paragraph of your original post appears to be describing postmodernism (or in psychotherapy, “intersubjectivity”) more than multiculturalism per se.
I think there’s a lot of overlap, mainly on the issue of whether it’s acceptable to tell someone they’re wrong. Of course, in many of the intersubjective discussions within psychotherapy, and in intercultural communication, there are many topics that really are a mesh of perspectives. But sometimes, as you know, one person is simply wrong.
Multiculturalism would deny you legitimacy because you are a white man, Postmodernism denies legitimacy itself (except, of course, the legitimacy of those doing the denying). The only obvious commonality is that when ideas become dogma, they serve to justify and rationalize the tyranny of the dogmatist. You make the point when you quote Orwell on the equality of animals. Pete Townsend made the point more succinctly::”Meet the new boss– Same as the old boss.” Is your beef with multiculturalism per se, or with hypocritical means of pursuing power?
Hypocritical means of pursing power. Although I think it’s inevitable, or nearly so, that multiculturalism will become the thing it despises, unless it recognizes its all-too-human features.
Then it would be unique among all human endeavors. Relationships are internalized to form mental models, and what is internalized is a *pairing* of a particular perception of self in relation to a particular perception of he the other other (in this case, something like disenfranchised in relation to privileged, along with accompanying anger and resentment.) We may identify with on or the other role in the dyad, but what is internalized is the dyad– both roles. If we reject our identification with one role, the only alternative we can conceive of is the other role in the same dyad, The roles change, the theme does not.
You’re singing my tune (as you know). But I don’t think it’s unrealistic for a multiculturalist to monitor his or her own tendencies to marginalize any more than it is to ask a psychotherapist to monitor his or her own tendency to impose patterns on the relationship. In fact, I think it doesn’t happen very often, and I think the road to making it happen more is to change the culture of multiculturalism, which I don’t know how to do except to write a blog, speak my mind, monitor and reveal my own tendency to marginalize, and perform comedy.
I thought it was all comedy. 🙂