Wednesday 30 September 2009

Janelle responds to response to key lecture

I was really surprised and pleased by your posting about my keyword lecture, because I thought the fact that we didn't have any discussion meant I wouldn't get any feedback. So thank you first just for the post.

Second, I really like the challenge of the idea that 'multiculturalism' is an important keyword in our macro-analysis. I have been working with multicultural theory for many years, first in the US as part of trying to put race gender and sexuality into play in theories, in the classroom, in the academy more generally. But it is really in the political realm that it became important--and productive--for a while. Similarly in the UK, 'multiculturalism' became official Labour party policy after Thatcher. The difficulty with the term right now from my point of view is that it is in flux in the public sphere. Right-wing conservatives have mobilized against it as a 'failed' policy in both the US and the UK--in the UK, even rather leftish liberals are saying that the policy of multiculturalism lead to separatism and a silo effect in communities that missed the chance of coalition politics. I think a program-wide discussion on this concept could be really interesting for us because it will be differently useful or problematic in many places. Singapore is another country with a state policy of multiculturalism, but as our Singapore students in the first MAIPR cohort eloquently explained, when a concept becomes ideology it sometimes becomes oppressive or just plain false (I should say we had three Singapore students who would express their ideas about this topic quite differently.) So...I am reluctant to install the term too definitely, but I am really interested in reading and discussing about its complexity. And I loved the diagrams which you made to show what conceptual model you preferred. At Warwick, we will be taking up some readings and discussion on multiculturalism, but from a limited standpoint--what it means in a situated circumstance of postcolonial Britain. Other situated circumstances could be teased out by our students--that's what I meant about why we need you in the course, in the room, thinking together with us.
Janelle

5 comments:

  1. Janelle:
    I also wanted to comment on your presentation. Is just one little comment, but I think it could do a 'world' of difference, because it problematizes (I believe) the whole setting of the conversation.
    I noticed (coming from an International Relations background) that many of the terms you discussed assume the existence of a nation-state without really problematizing it. However, the whole idea of a 'nation' and that of the 'modern state', are -to say the least- problematic.
    So, how can we talk about transnational, international, internationalism, multiculturalism and globalization without first stopping to have a deep immersion on the whole problematic around the nation-state?
    It is there... and it seems to be disappearing or being blurred. But on the other hand, when it comes to the 'monopoly of violence' it is as present as ever (if not even more violent after having suspended many of the social security & welfare systems).

    Anway... just some ideas to keep the conversation running.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Multiculturalism is one of my cultural 'keywords' as a Canadian. Canada's model (and 'performance' of) multiculturalism is very different from that of the UK, the USA, France (and quite possibly anywhere else in the world--though those are the only countries about which I can speak from experience). Just to scrape the surface, 'multiculturalism' is a fundamental part of our national identity!--The identity that we are constantly trying to formulate and grab hold of because we are slightly afraid it doesn't exist (which in some ways I think this is a healthy place to be as it means we are perpetually self-evaluating in at least some respects).

    A CBC radio program called 'ideas' has made countless episodes on the topic--I may have some on my hard drive that I can share with people and will have a look...

    I fear I am too exhausted to articulate anything at this hour this week but just wanted to say that I am very keen to talk about what this word can mean and does mean in different places with anyone who is interested.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not only UK, US and Singapore, more and more countries are also taking 'cultural diversity' policy for many reasons. Despite of its good will, I felt that it might increase conventional ideas of specific culture thru extremely simplified icons instead of enriching our cultural understanding. In this context, the conference title below caught my attention.

    "Cultural diversity initiatives reinforce stereotypes rather than remove them"

    Is there a place in a 21st century city like London for cultural events that focus primarily on 'diverse' cultures? Shouldn't we encourage new, less exclusive, arts practices that help us make better sense of our increasingly globalised and inter-connected times?

    When: Tuesday 20 October, doors at 6.45pm, debate at 7.30pm
    Where: The Tabernacle, Powis Square, London W11 2AY.
    Tickets: FREE but booking essential
    To reserve a place: info@culturalco-operation.org / 020 7264 0000

    ReplyDelete
  4. If any of you attends the conference, could you please share with us your impressions?

    Cheers!

    Nese

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diego,

    I find your point very interesting as even though culturally, mobilization wise or just socially through means such as Facebook/Skype etc. individuals are able to transpass nation(al) borders, the violence of/by the nation state is one thing activism is not able to circumscribe.

    Police/Army still seen as legitimate forces to "protect" people of the nation.

    Hmm... Thinking out loud/written; now will go thinking by myself :)

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.