LEADING A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY



LEADING A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY

Challenges and Direction of Energies

Bro.Paulraj ,S.G.

I. What is Multiculturalism?

The early 1970s marked the emergence of the multicultural movement at first in Canada and Australia and then in the U.S.A., U.K., Germany and elsewhere. Since the multicultural movement sprang up unplanned in many different political contexts, attracted a diverse cluster of groups, and has so far failed to throw up a coherent philosophical statement of its central principles, it lacks a clear focus and identity. We Indians are multicultural by virtue. But those who were chanting the mantra of multiculturalism for decades are now talking about cultural assimilation.

I would therefore like to begin by clarifying what it means and stands for, and then briefly highlight some of the problems facing a multicultural society. Multiculturalism is best understood neither as a political doctrine with a programmatic content nor a philosophical school with a distinct theory of human’s place in the world but as a perspective on or a way of viewing human life.

Bhikhu Parekh defines multiculturalism thus: Multiculturalism does not simply mean numerical plurality of different cultures, but rather a community which is creating, guaranteeing, and encouraging spaces within which different communities are able to grow at their own pace. At the same time it means creating a public space in which these communities are able to interact, enrich the existing culture and create a new consensual culture in which they recognize reflections of their own identity”.

Its central insights are three, each of which is sometimes misinterpreted by its advocates and needs to be carefully reformulated if it is to carry conviction.

First, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organize 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. Since each realizes a limited range of human capacities and emotions and grasps only a part of the totality of human existence, it needs other cultures to help it understand itself better, expand its intellectual and moral horizon, stretch its imagination, save it from narcissism to guard it against the obvious temptation to absolutise itself, and so on.

Third, every culture is internally plural and reflects a continuing conversation between its different traditions and strands of thought. This does not mean that it is devoid of coherence and identity, but that its identity is plural, fluid and open. Cultures grow out of conscious and unconscious interactions with each other, define their identity in terms of what they take to be their significant other, and are at least partially multicultural in their origins and constitution.

What we might call a multiculturalist perspective is composed of the creative interplay of these three important and complementary insights – namely the cultural embeddedness of human beings, the inescapability and desirability of cultural plurality, and the plural and multicultural constitution of each culture. When we view the world from its vantage point, our attitudes to ourselves and others undergo profound changes.

A culture cannot appreciate the value of others unless it appreciates the plurality within it; the converse is just as true. Closed cultures cannot and do not wish or need to talk to each other. Since each defines its identity in terms of its differences from others or what it is not, it feels threatened by them and seeks to safeguard its integrity by resisting their influences and even avoiding all contacts with them. A culture cannot be at ease with differences outside it unless it is at ease with its own internal differences.

From a multiculturalist perspective the good society cherishes the diversity of and encourages a creative dialogue between its different cultures and their moral visions. Such a society not only respects its members’ rights to their culture and increases their range of choices but also cultivates their powers of self-criticism, self-determination, imagination, intellectual and moral sympathy, and contributes to their development and well-being.

Multiculturalism acknowledges the existence of diverse communities, but what is more important is that it accords positive value to the collective identities of all ethnic communities. It pictures a society which is characterized not by multiple cultural solitudes or endemic cultural strife, but by communities living together and participating as equal partners in national political life.

II. MODELS OF MULTICULTURALISM

1. Demographic multiculturalism: A particular society merely contains different cultural groups; whether the rights of various groups are respected and counted is not the issue.

2. Holistic multiculturalism: It means that a society values cultural diversity, but gives higher priority to group-wise co-hesion.

3. Political multiculturalism: It is a social philosophy which acknowledges the legitimate concerns of ethnic groups within a society and the need for these interests to be expressed in adequate politico-economic structures and processes.

4. Egalitarian multiculturalism: It means that recognition must be made available to everyone within society. No community and no member of it can be subordinate to other communities or its members.

5. Multiculturalism by accident and multiculturalism by design: The first one is a physical presence in a public space and the second is the cognition of the other’s culture.

6. Accommodative multiculturalism: It emphasizes the sheer struggle for survival, which compels wide cross-sections of the people to live and fight together through their differences.

III. MULTICULTURALISM IN RELIGIOUS LIFE

We are witnesses to the turbulent struggle faced today by many countries/cultures/congregations in trying to build a multicultural society. We are witnesses to the attempts at creation and destruction of multicultural communities in many places.

1. SENSE OF BELONGING BASED ON SHARED COMMITMENT: A multicultural religious society cannot be stable and last long without developing a common sense of belonging among its members. The sense of belonging cannot be ethnic and based on shared cultural, ethnic and other characteristics, but must be based on a shared commitment to the larger community. Its members do not directly belong to each other as in an ethnic group but through their mediating membership of a shared community, and they are committed to each other because they are all in their own different ways committed to a common historical (faith) community. They do and should matter to each other because they are bonded together by the ties of common interest and attachment (faith).

2. COMMITMENT TO THE INTEGRITY AND WELL-BEING: While different members would develop different emotions towards their community, what is necessary to sustain it and can legitimately be expected of them is a basic commitment to its integrity and well-being, what one might call congregational/diocesan loyalty. Guided by such loyalty, they might criticize their form of government, institutions, policies, values, ethos and dominant self understanding in the strongest possible terms if they think that these harm its survival and well-being. Their criticisms need not arouse unease or provoke charges of disloyalty so long as their basic commitment to the community is not in doubt.

3. COMMITMENT OR BELONGING IS RECIPROCAL IN NATURE: A religious cannot be committed to her/his religious community unless it is also committed to him/her, and he/she cannot belong to it unless it accepts him/her as one of it. The religious community therefore cannot expect its members to develop a sense of belonging to it unless it in turn belongs to them. It must, therefore, value and cherish them all equally and reflect this in its structure, policies, conduct of public affairs, self-understanding and self-definition.

4. SOCIAL RECOGNITION IS CENTRAL: When the dominant culture in a congregation defines the minorities in a demeaning way and systematically reinforces it by all the institutional and other means at its disposal, they consciously or unconsciously internalize the negative self-image, lack self-esteem, and feel alienated from the mainstream society. As Charles Taylor correctly observes, social recognition is central to the individual’s identity and self-worth and misrecognition can gravely damage both. The wisdom of a multicultural religious society consists in its ability to anticipate, minimize and manage such demands.

5. LANGUAGE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE CULTURAL CONFLICT/CULTURAL DIFFERENCE: An author has put forth a view, “…that language, not territory, was the prime cause of aggression, because once language reached the level of sophistication at which it could express abstract concepts, it acquired the power of totemisation; and once peoples/communities erected totems, they would go to war to defend them.” Totemisation of any kind can cause abuses and oppressions as the canons of religious faith. We know that in India we are adept at creating icons replacing old ones and any imagined sacrilege to them is enough to trigger a hate campaign, in an unabashed vicious and dangerous language. In religious life divisions based on languages are not anything new.

6. ALL ARE CHILDREN OF THE UNIVERSAL FATHER: Repeatedly the Catholic Church has stressed that Christians have to respect the dignity of every human being and the unity of the human race. Pope Paul VI said that all human beings, “… are the sons of the universal Father who created them in His image and guides their destinies with thoughtful love… This is a strong point of Christian universalism…and an axiom of the highest human wisdom of all times, that which involves the promotion of man’s dignity”.[1] The Church has made it very clear that “every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent.” (Gaudium et Spes, no.29). And down through the centuries, Christian Religious life has been guided and inspired by these ideals.

IV. LEARNING FROM A STUDY

1. In the study 8 out of 10 respondents say that many religious think and act in ways influenced by divisive feelings such as caste/language. And they agree that the divisive feelings based on caste/language influence the thinking and the actions of the religious.

2. More than 62 per cent of the respondents say that there is a kind of reluctance/resistance among the religious to live with the religious from other cultural groups.

3. At a very personal level most of the respondents seem to have positive experiences in their life in spite of the presence of tensions due to multicultural living. Eight out of ten respondents agree that they have mostly happy memories of living in multicultural communities. And more than 58 per cent of the respondents are of the view that living with persons from other language and caste groups has been a bitter experience for others, but not for them.

4. The Church in India cannot fight against casteism unless she herself is redeemed from its odious clutch. This caste mentality is an outright denial of the Fatherhood of God because casteism renders meaningless the brotherhood of man.”[2] We have some religious in India who view caste as the Indian equivalent of community and others who see it as the primary impediment to community.

5. It is noticed that the religious do not deal with each other as brothers and sisters but deal with one another as persons belonging to various castes, linguistic and cultural groups. Such coloured relationship and daily dealings based on divisive tendencies is going to alter the very foundations of religious life. These radically question the ideals and values on which the religious life is based.

6. It appears that attachment to things like money and possession, to honour, positions and authority are seen by the religious as instruments to boost their self importance, social standing and popularity. When such attachments on the personal level are transposed to the collective level, they result in various evils which seriously undermine and even ruin our community spirit and our united apostolic thrust (e.g.groupism) which imply an attachment to power and a power struggle.

7. Thus attachments hold back a person and mistakenly make the person believe that it is essential for the happiness of the person. As per the findings, in the case of religious, the attachments are to group identities of various types, so long as they need them, cling to them or depend on them emotionally. Eight out of ten respondents (81.5 %) say that divisive activities based on language, caste or others in religious congregations has its roots in the quest for money and power.

8. Six out of ten respondents feel that divisive tendencies in religious life are contrary to the teachings of Christ and the Gospel values.

9. Group affiliation and community: M.Amaladoss says, “people normally need and seek some social support, especially in times of crisis. Such social support comes from various sources: family and friends, linguistic, ethnic or religious groups. Some of these are natural groups: e.g. ethnic groups. Some are associational groups: e.g. friends or co-workers. The caste groups can also be such a support group. Sociologists think that in a democratic socio-political order, even if the hierarchy and discrimination slowly disappear, the caste may continue to remain a support group”. Some kind of group formation seems inevitable in society. Individual rights along with group rights are recognized in our society. The group identities are today becoming more political and assertive. Similar group identities are also emerging in religious life. It is not an easy task to totally eliminate differences and group identity in religious life. Some say that we need not engage in the futile exercise of seeking to abolish every element of group identity and difference among us. But what we should do is to see to it that these identities are not politicized as elements of power and privilege, hierarchy and domination.

10. Some manifestations of the divisive forces are:

• Block-voting in consultations and election, which close us to objective criterion and discerned choices.

• Highly coloured interpretations of appointments, transfers and other decisions of superiors.

• Spreading rumours and gossip about rivals.

• Holding on to status quo because of insecurity or fear of change.

• Secret gatherings in groups; anonymous letters; refusal to obey and defiance.

11. Credibility Question: The Christian community while mutually recognizing the differences of cultures attempts to transcend the differences and move towards equality and unity. The Church calls upon all Christians to banish all kinds of discriminations and says, “in any case, it is important that Christians become more aware that they are all called to be a sign in the world. Should they banish all forms of racial, ethnic, national or cultural discrimination from their conduct the world would recognize better the newness of the Gospel of reconciliation.” Credibility is what a social organization like religious life can achieve in the context of their service by manifesting faithfulness to their purpose and response to a real need. More than 55% of the respondents say that religious as a group of people have lost their credibility.

12. Very little time is left for creative work: It is found that these multicultural-related tensions and infighting among the religious sap their energy and keep them busy fighting based on petty issues. Hence they are able to dedicate very little time for any creative work or they have no time left for constructive purposes. The superiors are so involved in firefighting that they are left with very little time for animation and planning for the future.

13. More than 91.9 per cent of the respondents agree that multicultural co-existence among the religious is a great witness to the message of Jesus Christ. They also agree that multicultural communities are better for the future of religious life.

V. CHALLENGES IN LEADING A MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY

1. Members of religious orders have to go beyond group identity. It is appropriate to recall here in this regard, the recommendation of the Church to those in responsible positions in the Church: “Church particularly asks pastors, preachers, teachers and catechists to explain the true teaching of Scripture and Tradition about the origin of all people in God, their final common destiny in the Kingdom of God, the values of the precept of fraternal love,…and the universal calling of all to the same salvation in Jesus Christ”. Alok Rai says that henceforth culture will remain both a problem and must be at least a part of the solution…Perhaps it is the denial and not the affirmation of multiculturalism that results in prolonged, bitter, inter-group conflicts and mutual separation. Almost 92 per cent of the religious agree that cutting across caste and cultural lines, if they come together to live as brothers and sisters, they could bear witness to the message of Jesus Christ.

2. Sincere dialogue is proposed as one of the ways to handle this challenge. It is often noticed that the divisive activities are carried out not in the open but in a secret manner. Suspicion about one another based on their group identities causes tension, anxiety and mistrust. Dialogue is an effective means in this situation.

3. A law is needed to ban divisive activities in the Indian Church. The Catholic Church has advocated penalties for discriminatory behaviour especially when it was talking in the context of taking more effective penalties for racist actions and claims through the International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. It says, “…penal measures are necessary and important in order to punish those responsible for certain acts and as a collective demonstration of fundamental values, without which a society cannot hold together”.[3] The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear on this. It says, “Undoubtedly not all men are alike as regards physical capacity and intellectual and moral powers. But forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, colour, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design”.[4] “We state categorically that caste, with its consequent effects of discrimination and ‘caste mentality’ has no place in Christianity. It is in fact, a denial of Christianity because it is inhuman. It violates the God-given dignity and equality of the human person…Thus human dignity and respect are due to every person and any denial of this is a sin against God and man. It is an outright denial of the Fatherhood of God which in practice renders meaningless the brotherhood of man”.[5] In the study 81% of the respondents support enacting a law to ban caste and other divisive activities in the church.

4. Witnessing by multicultural communitarian lifestyle: We need prophetic religious who will pay attention to the cultural forces shaping religious life and play a prophetic role in countering the cultural threats to religious life. This will kindle a sense of hope of multicultural community for the future. More than 91.9 per cent of the respondents agree that multicultural co-existence among the religious is a great witness to the message of Jesus Christ.

5. Distancing from the politicized cultural forces: If religious orders are to fulfill their espoused function as critics of society and the Church, their prophetic role requires significant distance from the negative cultural forces.[6] Distancing themselves from the cultural forces that pose significant threat to religious life, the religious at the same time will have to strive to build and promote multicultural communities that are great witnesses to the teachings of Jesus Christ. In this context the Church calls for a positive appreciation of the diversity. It exhorts: “Respect for every person and every race is respect for basic rights, dignity and fundamental equality. This does not mean erasing cultural differences. Instead it is important to educate to a positive appreciation of the complementary diversity of peoples”.[7]

6. Culture as a resource and as a danger in religious life. Cultures have been a resource against many evils and at times a danger too. At a time when our political system and almost all our social institutions are facing an inner collapse, there is a renewed – indeed, desperate –interest in culture as a resource against communalism and all kinds of violence. It is almost as if culture has become our last resort for being human. The notion of culture as an undiluted inheritance needs to be countered. Of late it has gained currency to believe and affirm that culture is what we are born with and what is in our blood, what is mine/ours and no one else’s etc. Such a view is very exclusionary and narrow. Such belief is also making rounds in religious life.

7. Ethnic affiliation is found to be stronger than religious affiliation: In a multicultural society different ethnic groups compete for resources and attempt to assert their own cultural rights in order to establish, preserve and augment respective ethnic identities. Religious life is not free from this. Any congregational set up which is multicultural by nature is going through such moments of cultural assertion and denial. However the integration of diverse ethnic (race, language, caste, and region) identities into one united and cohesive unit remains one of the principal pursuits of religious orders in India today. A cursory look at the religious orders here shows that when interests of diverse (caste and linguistic) groups clash with each other, it affects and weakens the process of community building. There is a danger that the caste, linguistic or cultural affiliation could become stronger than religious affiliation. Strong affiliation with ethnic identities would lead to provincial chauvinism within a community/ congregation, which could be antithetical to the multiethnic fabric of a multicultural congregation/community.

8. When dealing with situations of multicultural tensions in an order, the need to foster a common sense of belonging has to be emphasized; judicious programmes of affirmative action can be tried. The Church has been consistently contributing toward promoting the fraternal coexistence of all peoples. It has even acknowledged that its primary vocation is this: “The Church has the sublime vocation of realizing, first of all within herself, the unity of humankind over and above any ethnic, cultural, national, social or other divisions in order to signify precisely that such divisions are now obsolete, having been abolished by the cross of Christ”.

VI. DIRECTION OF ENERGIES:

1.Establishing multi-cultural communities is the abiding solution: For a healthy and balanced growth of religious life and for creating vibrant Christian communities, multicultural setting is a must. Multicultural pluralism is what religious require to counter the onslaught of sectarian group identities and narrow selfish gains.

2. Education for the priests and religious on multicultural issues, on caste, gender issues and other socio-cultural issues is needed today. Amartya Sen says that belonging to each one of the membership groups can be quite important. When they compete for attention and priority over each other the person has to decide on the relative importance to attach to the respective identities. He also says that a person has to make choices about what relative importance to attach to the divergent loyalties and priorities that may compete for precedence”. This is possible only with some amount of education.

3. Identify prophetic personalities in religious orders/communities and nurture them in different ways to counter the onslaught of divisive forces.

4. Suitable training in managing cultural differences can be imparted for the major superiors and formators. Therefore an intercultural management is an important issue in religious life today. The training in managing cultural differences has to essentially focus on the inner layer of cultural awareness, on the diversity of cultures and calling and on managing cultural differences.

5. Develop strategies for managing cultural differences: The subtlety of developing a strategy for cultural management involves some knowledge of cultural traits of different caste, language and ethnic groups and the ability to know what to expect when dealing with specific cultural groups. This would be of great help in handling and managing explosive cultural situations that pose challenges in religious life today. Respect for differences including respect for individual cultures and groups, respect for intercultural encounters and exchanges, composed approach to hostile and volatile cultural situations, competent handling of corruption of cultures, form part of the competent strategies for managing cultural differences.

6. Developing relevant social support systems for the religious: In other words they need ongoing support system which we can, call as social support system. This kind of social support can help the religious, move to service oriented action, persevere in action and maintain normalcy all along. Unlike other forms of life, in religious life a different kind of supportive relationships are necessary. This supportive and challenging relationship can provide many benefits, among them a platform for ventilation, reality testing, social support and approval, integration into a community and constancy. The supportive relationships will help the socially isolated individual religious to develop social resources too and not fall a prey to sectarian forces.

Conclusion: Differences that are nurtured lead to diversity and diversity that is celebrated is the springboard for creative change within our lives. The difference could be negotiated and shared, across the diversities of region, language, gender, and caste. This is a great challenge for the future of the Church.

-----------------------

[1] Discourse to the Diplomatic Corps, 14 January 1978: AAS LXX (1978), 172. Many other pronouncements expressed similar thoughts: Encyclical Populorum Progressio, nos.47 and 63; Message of Paul VI to the peoples of Africa before the Ugandan Parliament on ! August 1969; AAS LXI (1969), 580-586; Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens of Paul VI, no.16: AAS LXIII (1971), 413; Message for the 1971 World Day of Peace: “Every Man is my Brother”.

[2] Jose Therampil, “How can the Church in India be redeemed from Casteism?” in Sebesti L.Raj and G.F.Xavier Raj (eds.), Caste Culture in Indian Church: The Response of Church to the Problem of Caste within the Christian Community, (New Delhi: Indian Social Institute,1993) p.46

[3] Church and Racism: Towards a More Fraternal Society, Pontifical Council For Justice and Peace, (Guwahati: Don Bosco Publications,2001), p.7

[4] Constitution Gaudium Et spes, no.29; cf.also Ibid., no.60 for the right to culture; cf.Declaration Nostra Aetate,no.5; Decree Ad Gentes,no.15; Declaration Gravissimum Educationis,no.1 for the right to education. All these texts speak of Church’s attitudes towards human dignity.

[5] Catholic India, January,1982,No.1, pp.2-3.

[6] David J.Nygren and Miriam D.Ukeritis, The Future of Religious Orders in the United States: Transformation and Commitment, (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993), p.158.

[7] Church and Racism: Towards a More Fraternal Society, Pontifical Council For Justice and Peace, (Guwahati: Don Bosco Publications,2001), p.58

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download