The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Multiculturalism as propaganda > Comments

Multiculturalism as propaganda : Comments

By David Long, published 30/8/2007

Many of those who hold the concept of multiculturalism in reverential awe do not have a clear understanding of its meaning.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"Sociology and every other social science, teaches that all values are subjective".

"Is the truth worth pursuing?" -- "Scientifically speaking? No!"

I have never read such gross misrepresentation. David Long, you are a liar.

From Alfred Kroeber at the beginning of the 20th century through George Tamarin to Marc Hauser today, anthropologists and psychologists have revealed the common cross-cultural foundation of human morality.

There *are* universal, instinctive moral values which are common to the vast majority of people across cultures. It is precisely the social sciences which have demonstrated it. For you to suggest that sociology teaches unadulterated moral relativism is an outright lie.

Subjective, "cultural" values -- which change over time as well as across cultures -- do exist, and indeed at their extremes lead to rather perverse behaviour (which, if it were not "cultural", would be regarded as psychopathic). But the vast majority of members of any culture, when asked to make "reference" moral judgments which are outside the dictates of their cultural norm, will make the same decisions.

Moreover, science by its nature has come from an "enlightened" background. The cultures which fostered scientific development have always been those which are expanding, malleable and receptive to challenges to their basic ideas: the ancient Greeks and Chinese, the Arabs in the middle ages, and the globalising Western civilisation since the 15th century.

Scientists are, of course, well aware of the history of science and their own cultural backgrounds and therefore almost universally progressive. The values of science are NOT relativist, but receptive: ready to examine new evidence, to hear testimony on its merits, and accept "new" truths as they are discovered.

Therefore, there *is* a morality of science. Science depends on a certain moral stance and scientists, by and large, will advocate that moral stance.

It includes tolerance of opposing opinions and of mere "cultural" differences, especially where common humanity can be recognised.
Posted by xoddam, Thursday, 30 August 2007 11:16:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm... I would have thought calling someone a liar for a differing opinion shows very little tolerance, for a liar can no longer entertain any reasonable of fair discussion. It seems you’ve taken rather a moral stance xoddam, rather than an objective one – but that’s your call.

Any knowledgeable physicist will testify that, at a basic level, science is amoral (Science cannot testify to what is is good and bad) - it has to be in order to progress. It can’t be constrained by anything beyond what it itself can prove through observation, experimentation and duplication
Posted by relda, Thursday, 30 August 2007 12:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Long,

a thoughtful article. Why do we as citizens, need to even consider "multicultural policies" anyway? A democratic state has no role in promoting cultural diversity, especially with taxpayers' money. The natural and understandable desire of immigrants to bring their cultures with them has been institutionalised as multiculturalism.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One might argue whether social science is a science at all.

While there seems to be plenty of theories being put forward by social scientists, I don’t know of any scientific laws that have ever been established by social scientists, and so much of social science research has now sunk into a murky mire of advocacy research.

It is being said that multiculturalism is of benefit to society, but is this a highly reliable or mostly accurate statement, or is this only an initial theory that has yet to be rigorously tested and proven.

With the demise of the hard sciences in Australian schools and education systems, the soft sciences are gradually taking over and filling the vacuum, but the soft sciences seem to have minimal interest in the scientific method.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 30 August 2007 2:03:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS:

The 'soft' sciences are addressing areas where the scientific method cannot be applied. So why would they have an interest in it? They use other methods and models for approaching their work.

Whether you want to disagree with the semantic connotations of referring to these as sciences is another discussion. But you seem to be suggesting that because they don't use the scientific method they are somehow less valid. Incorrect.

"Hard" science can be, and has continually been, used throughout history to justify evil. For instance, a rather convincing and scientific claim could have been made that prior to the emancipation of African American slaves in the US, slaves would be better off financially and with regard to physical health by remaining under the domination of white owners rather than being freed. It was not 'hard' science that lead to the liberation of the slave.
Posted by StabInTheDark, Thursday, 30 August 2007 3:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“this attempt to preserve old cultures in the New World is superficial because it ignores the fact that real differences among men are based on real differences in fundamental beliefs about good and evil, about what is highest, about God.”

And this statement ignores the fact that differing cultural beliefs about good and evil are influenced by and reflected in a people’s culture. By understanding things like dress, food, rituals etc etc we can gain a better understanding of these beliefs and what informs them. Really David, pick up a book or two on what these Social Scientists are studying. Try and understand it a little better yourself first before you set out to denigrate it. In order to talk about something, it’s generally good to know what it is you’re talking about first.

“Multiculturalism which, at its most practical and basic level, promotes the cultures of all peoples including those who do not embrace the equality of their fellow citizens,”

That is blatantly false. We have laws to prevent discrimination and exploitation, amongst other things. We have ‘basic rights’ that are applicable to all and that serve as an underpinning for the operation of society. Rights that are designed specifically to allow differing ‘cultures’ whether they be religious, ethnic, sexual or otherwise. People are free to practice their ‘culture’, but they are NOT free to infringe on those rights of other people to do the same. THIS is what the American Republic is ‘supposed’ to stand for and hasn’t since its inception. Perhaps in time the world will see it in practice.
Posted by StabInTheDark, Thursday, 30 August 2007 3:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy