Nietzsche wrote of the man dashing through the streets to the market seeking God. The man fails to find him and so pronounces that God is dead, calling out “we have killed him, you and I”.1
It would seem the same fate has befallen multiculturalism in parts of the western world with all that remains being the political autopsy to establish the cause of death. The bells have already tolled across Europe with Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Cameron and President Sarkozy successively declaring its failure as a social policy.
The situation in Australia is less stark and it is in that context that Raimond Gaita has edited a collection of essays on the state of multiculturalism in this country with particular reference to the impact of Islam. Given that the immigration debate continues to rage and, with our armed forces still engaged in a distant theatre, these essays are a timely and relevant contribution to the national debate.
Whenever a new ‘ism’ is bandied around in the public sphere by politicians and the commentariat, ambiguity persists as to what is actually meant by the catch-all neologism of which they speak. There is a general understanding of what is being discussed but definitional precision usually remains elusive, if only so that room to manoeuvre is preserved. These definitional issues have stalked the debate surrounding multiculturalism and assimilationism since it retook the centre stage for a time in 1996. One of the clearest encapsulations that I have encountered of what could be meant by the term multiculturalism in its Australian context is stated in this book in the essay by Ghassan Hage . In the essay, it is posed that
“multiculturalism was always about finding a space for the culture of the other in so far as this culture does not claim a sovereignty over itself that clashes with the law of the nation”2
And, further, that
“multiculturalism is primarily defined by this relation of encompassment… but what cannot possibly change is that the dominant culture has to be the encompassing culture and the law of the other encompassed culture.”3
Gaita in his introduction also speaks to the ambiguity of the term and the prismatic effect of definition when he notes the speech by Peter Costello in 2006 and the comment that “Australia is often described as a successful multicultural society [and] it is in the sense that people from all different backgrounds live together in harmony”.4 It is in this respect that multiculturalism can seem to occupy ground claimed by the left and the right, with semantics needing to be distilled from substance.
Multiculturalism, like Hamlet, has the Shakespearean quality of the noble character brought down by a tragic flaw. In the instance of multiculturalism, it is the virtue of tolerance that constitutes its strength but also the potential for its own undoing. It is tolerance and the fundamental egalitarianism of Australian society that underpins its success in accommodating disparate cultures and ethnicities. However, it is that same tolerance that can give rise to inequity and disproportion when inevitable strain occurs as to the encompassment, or put less delicately, the market share of any given culture. Islam is an obvious example of an issue central to this social strain and it is the theme of the essays in this book.
What is commendably attempted by some but not all of the essayists is the balancing of opposing views on the position of a Muslim citizen in a western democracy. There are some inescapable realities that must lead to conflict in the lives of such people. Shakira Hussein relates in her essay that, during trips to Pakistan, she is always bombarded with eager questions as to life in Australia and the possibilities of migration, sponsorship and the necessary visas.5 However, Hussein also notes the laws of evidence in Pakistan in respect of the offences of rape and adultery. In such instances, a woman’s evidence is worth less than a man’s, with the obvious result in the majority of rape cases where it is word against word.6
The adjustment required in moving from that culture to our own is critical. It is in this context that the definition of multiculturalism is tested and Hage’s notion of law and encompassment comes to the fore. There is evidence enough of the quality of life that we enjoy in this country. That quality of life is guaranteed by the civic trinity of secularism, rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. These are immutable mainstays not found in the countries of origin of many Muslims. It is in this collision of culture and value that these essays portend the future of our society. The quality of the writing overall is excellent. Gaita writes with graceful concision and Hage is cogent and persuasive. A minor quibble is that all the essayists are academics and tend, with the exception of Hussein, to the theoretical. Given the issues involved, a greater balance may have been achieved if the book had been leavened by other perspectives.
Such a topic cannot be broached without the spectre of terrorism infusing the discourse. Terrorism by Muslims is now considered a real and quotidian prospect. The book devotes extended passages to addressing that reality. What emerges is that the greatest threat to clarity and conciliation for the parties to the multiculturalism debate is generalisation. Much is lost in meaning when the micro of an individual life is transferred to the macro of national policy and broadcast media. Gaita writes in his introduction that
“Terrorists threaten only our lives. They do not threaten the values we hold dear. We do that if, to save our lives, we seriously degrade institutions that we cherish — the very institutions that an aggressor would destroy”.7
Only a few weeks ago, the federal Attorney-General was required to reject a submission from the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils by stating that “there is no place for sharia law in Australian society”.8 It should not matter what issues confront us as a society, it is how those issues are resolved. A lobby group making a submission to a federal parliamentary committee is the definition of a democratic mechanism, as is a government’s public response in delineating policy.
Agree with their views or not, these essayists are themselves the best evidence of the rude health of Australian democracy. It is in the market-place of ideas and the public fora of our institutions that merit and majoritarianism meet to the greatest effect. It is frequently an inelegant process. Australians, Muslim or otherwise, contributing to that through the publishing of a considered and balanced book of essays is the hallmark of our civilisation writ small.
© Benjamin Dighton 2011
Footnotes
- Nietzsche, F., The Gay Science (1882), section 125.
- Essays on Muslims and Multiculturalism, at 163.
- Ibid., at 163.
- Ibid., at 3.
- Ibid., at 96.
- Ibid., at 111.
- Ibid., at 11.
- Karvelas, P., 2011, ‘Muslims use multiculturalism to push for sharia’, The Australian, 17 May.
