There have been four main strategies aimed at releasing electorates from what seem to me to be the dangerous effects of identity politics on democracy. [See my recent piece on Musk and Hegel for a blatant example of the sort of political theory one can expect to result from xenophobia].
One approach is that which Stalin undertook to incredible extremes. He wasn't a terribly deep thinker, but he could see that the wide variety of languages, cultures, religions, prejudices, etc. found in his gigantic autocracy made a united citizenry very hard to obtain. As devotion to one's church or language seemed inconsistent with his central idea that the Soviet Union--and of course, he himself--were what had to be considered MOST IMPORTANT to every Soviet citizen, Stalin burned down the churches and took children from from their parents throughout widespread regions. He then had these children brought up where they would hear nothing but Russian and their only religion would be his Stalinist form of Marxism.
In spite of the fact that this plan was in effect for a substantial period of time, as soon as the slightest bit of Glasnost was effectuated, the parents who still lived were found, the churches were rebuilt, the old languages were spoken again, the clothing and cuisine reverted to their ethnic origins, etc. It was a near-total failure.
The second approach is the one that has been taken by the United States and a number of other countries around the world. The genus has two species that have been characterized by two metaphors: that of the melting pot, and that of the mosaic. The first rejects the Stalinist selection of an ex ante choice of approved result, but agrees with Uncle Joe that one needs to end up with a single, unified culture; the second takes the position that a country may consist of numerous diverse cultures, but they can learn to be happy and comfortable living together.
The fourth approach is that of Hitler. Neither reeducation nor expulsion is deemed sufficient, and genocide is taken to be the only answer. Of course, there may be hybrids; like Netanyahu, one may decide that either expulsion or genocide is fine.
It may be noticed that the first three visions share a dependence on education. The first two require a sort of "reeducation" that will result in some sort of cultural alteration--either purification or a sort of average produced by "melting." The third approach depends upon instruction only to push the idea that groups which may continue to differ greatly can come to understand that such differences need not imply either hostility or any divergence in rights or privileges.
As indicated, Stalinism has obviously failed. Even if it could work, it is very expensive, and more than a couple of generations seems necessary for any success. It is unsurprising, then, that it has almost completely fallen out of favor. On the other hand, the Hitlerian vision seems still to attract a lot of people around the world.
Perhaps there are countries to be found where either the mosaic or the melting pot approach has worked (or is at least making progress), but the current state of American politics provides a clear indication not only that both have ultimately failed in this country, but that whatever benefits that diversity education has attempted to foster here over the last several generations will now be abandoned. In fact, education generally will be given little or no priority by the Federal government under Trump: it is thought to be dangerous to any theory that yearns for complete homogeneity.
In the U.S (in part because of earlier genocides), it is not predominantly differences in indigenous languages or cultures that that are--in lockstep the Stalinist and Hitlerian conceptions--thought to be harmful (but to require expulsions rather than either reeducation or exterminations). Rather, it is differences in race, religion, and ideas about gender that are taken as most dangerous. (Of course, where there ARE language differences, only one language will be tolerated.) In all cases, expulsion and the filtering of future immigrants are understood to be the solution to every sort of peril. There is no current apparent interest in either extermination or reeducation, just in getting "different" people the hell out of here.
Is there another way, a fifth approach, to address this fundamental obstacle to authentic democracy? Must we concede that, because of some sort of basic psychological feature of human beings, every truly democratic polity must be homogenous (and thus probably quite small)?
I leave this difficult question to others with more intelligence and/or deeper insights than my own. I will say, though, that in spite of a lot of reading and thinking about this matter over the years, no fifth approach has ever struck me as being very promising.
No comments:
Post a Comment