2. Cultural Pluralism and National Identity Flashcards
Definition of Cultural Pluralism
- Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society.
Concept that individual ethnic groups have a right to exist on their own terms within the larger society while retaining their unique cultural heritages.
What is the difference between multiculturalism and pluralism?
o Multiculturalism lacks the requirement of a dominant culture.
o If the dominant culture is weakened, societies can easily pass from cultural pluralism into multiculturalism without any intentional steps being taken by that society.
- pluralism has a dominant culture
- in a pluralist culture,
o groups not only co-exist side by side,
o but also consider qualities of other groups as traits worth having in the dominant culture
Do pluralistic societies lean towards integration or assimilation?
They lean towards integration.
integration
minorities are incorporated into the social structure of the host society to achieve peaceful co-existence
assimilation
minority group or culture comes to resemble a dominant group or assume the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group (they don’t get to keep their cultural heritage)
Cultural pluralism
Emphasizes that smaller cultural groups maintain their unique identities while coexisting within a dominant culture. It stresses integration, where minority groups participate in the broader society without necessarily abandoning their cultural heritage. The key idea is that diversity strengthens the national fabric.
Multiculturalism
Goes a step further by promoting the celebration of cultural diversity, where different cultural identities are recognized and valued equally. It suggests that no single culture should dominate, and encourages cultural diversity without the pressure for integration into a dominant national culture.
What does the “melting pot” theory suggest that can be criticized?
The need for assimilation, abandoning original culture and traditions.
When did the anti-immigrant backlash become increasingly xenophobic, and nativism took extreme forms of prejudice?
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which saw the largest surge of immigrant arrivals in American history.
On what bases were immigrants discriminated?
in education, employment, government programs, housing, and public accommodations
Scientific racism
Scientific racism refers to the use of scientific or pseudoscientific methods to justify racial discrimination, inequality, or the belief that some races are inherently superior or inferior to others. In the past, some researchers and scientists misused their platforms and the authority of “science” to support racist ideologies, promoting the idea that race determined intelligence, behavior, or moral worth.
These ideas often relied on flawed or manipulated data and ignored the social, cultural, and environmental factors that actually shape human behavior. One infamous example is the 19th-century pseudo-science of phrenology, where researchers claimed to determine intelligence or criminality based on skull shape. Another example is eugenics, a movement that promoted selective breeding to improve the genetic quality of the human race, often targeting marginalized groups.
Scientific racism has been thoroughly debunked by modern genetics and social sciences. Today, we understand that race is a social construct rather than a biological determinant of one’s abilities, character, or potential. The genetic differences between individuals of different races are minimal, and the concept of race itself doesn’t have any consistent, scientifically valid basis.
So, “scientific racism” is basically the misuse of science to perpetuate harmful and false stereotypes, using it as a tool for discrimination rather than understanding.
When did Edward Alsworth Ross publish his book that contained scientific racism? What was the title of it?
In 1914. The title: The Old World in the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People
What did Edward Alsworth Ross argue about immigrants?
He articulated heavy criticism, for example, deemed Italians and Slavs as genetically inferior, arguing their presence in the United States as a rootless proletariat threatened skilled native-born workers and promoted political corruption.
“rootless proletariat”
The term “rootless proletariat” refers to a segment of the working class that lacks stable employment, property, and social ties. This group is often seen as transient and disconnected from traditional community structures. Historically, the term has been used to describe workers who migrate frequently in search of work, lacking a permanent home or stable job. Culturally, this can lead to a sense of alienation and marginalization, as these individuals are often excluded from mainstream social and economic systems1.
The implications of being a rootless proletariat are significant. Economically, they are vulnerable to exploitation and poor working conditions, as they have little bargaining power. Socially, they may struggle to form lasting relationships and community ties, leading to a sense of isolation. Politically, they can be seen as a destabilizing force, as their lack of roots makes them less likely to engage in traditional political processes and more susceptible to radical ideologies1.
“skilled native-born workers”
Regarding “skilled native-born workers,” this term typically refers to American workers who possess specific skills or training that make them valuable in the labor market. These workers are often contrasted with unskilled or immigrant labor. While they are not necessarily capitalists, they do hold a more secure and advantageous position within the economy compared to the rootless proletariat. They are seen as integral to maintaining the economic stability and productivity of the nation2.
What was the title of Horace Kallen’s reply to Ross’ article that he published in The Nation, in 1915? Politically, where did the magazine stand?
The Nation is a leftist magazine. Kallen’s article was titled: “Democracy Versus the Melting Pot.”
Philosophical Pluralist
This means Kallen believed in the importance of having multiple perspectives and differences coexisting. He thought that diversity in ideas and cultures was valuable and should be preserved.
Kallen was a philosophical pluralist. What does that mean?
He believed that differences (in culture, values, etc.) should exist side by side. One dominant reality subjugating other worldviews is an orthodoxy, which he labeled an “oversimplified straightjacket” suppressing the complexity of reality. Philosophical certainty is impossible; thus all theories should be debated and respected, instead of overshadowed by one dominant paradigm. He believed that diverse cultures should coexist since they strengthen and not jeopardize American society. If one culture dominates the others, that creates disunity and strife, not security. Assimilation misrepresents immigrant contributions and is unconstitutional.
How did Kallen “label” (ugly word, I know, for an ugly man) assimilationists?
As members of an elite Anglo-Saxon class (WASPs) that was losing its cultural dominance and fighting to maintain its prerogatives by undemocratic and unscholarly ways.
How did Kallen see ethnic groups integration?
They should be able to maintain their cultural heritage and identity while accepting the democratic political frameworks and principles of their host country, namely the U.S.
main critical points against cultural pluralism
- It might lead to separatism (groups living apart like islands).
- “nation of nations” –> cultural groups isolate themselves instead of integrating (mixing?)
- fears: division instead of unity, similarly like in Switzerland (separate linguistic or cultural regions) - It might stifle individual freedom by locking people into traditions.
- “tradition suppresses individuality” –> view traditions as static, rigid, opposite to personal growth
- The fear: If your ethnic group says you have to act, dress, or live a certain way, it might override your individuality.
- Critics think cultural pluralism glorifies traditions at the expense of personal choice. - It might overemphasize ethnic identity over everything else about a person.
- Critics think cultural pluralists treat ethnic identity as more important than any other part of who you are (e.g., your job, hobbies, personal beliefs).
- fears of narrowly defined identity - It’s been unfairly attacked as being tied to Jewish ideology.
- Some critics accuse Horace Kallen (who popularized cultural pluralism) of basing his ideas on his Jewish background, implying it’s biased or not universal.
- There’s a gross underlying insinuation here about cultural pluralism being a self-serving ideology for one group.
enclave
- (idegen országba) beékelt terület; enklávé
- nyelvsziget
cultural pluralists’ response to criticism
Cultural pluralists argue that their vision is about integration, dynamism, and mutual respect. They acknowledge some early confusion and lack of political clarity, but by the 21st century, their ideas feel a bit sidelined by the rise of complex, blended identities—which some think is leading to a new identity crisis.
- integration instead of segregation
- cultures are dynamic, not static and ossified
- cultural identity is important, but not the only thing about a person, so respecting everyone’s identity (cultural and personal) works vice versa
- it is a philosophical theory, not a political agenda
- they do not want racial or ethic segregation, but could have been clearer (integration, babes)
- Unlike multiculturalists (who actively fight for policies like affirmative action), cultural pluralists struggled to explain how to handle separatists politically, their focus was more philosophical.
- By the 2000s, cultural pluralism felt outdated because so many Americans were claiming mixed ethnic and racial identities.
‘one nation under God, indivisible’
- line from the Pledge of Allegiance, projecting strong, indivisible unity
- unity imagined as assimilation to a homogeneous “Americaneity”
- this unity is based on WASP ideas, originating from pilgrims
primary source for cultural pluralism:
immigration
What event bolstered stricter immigration and border security rules?
The 2001 9/11 catastrophy.
Patriot Act of 2001
- Reason: Post-9/11 terror attacks; nearly 3,000 dead. Aim: prevent future attacks.
- Powers Granted: Surveillance expansion (wiretapping, mass data collection, secret searches), detainment without trial, broad definition of terrorism (domestic & international).
- Impact: Violation of 4th Amendment (privacy), Islamophobia, racial profiling, erosion of civil liberties.
- Political Effects: Boosted presidential power (Bush), bipartisan support (98-1 Senate vote), normalized “War on Terror.”
- Legacy: Surveillance state, mistrust of government, and American identity tied to nationalism and WASP ideals.
carte blanche
In a political context, “carte blanche” refers to giving someone complete freedom or full discretionary power to act as they see fit, without any restrictions or limitations. This term is often used to describe situations where an individual or entity is granted the authority to make decisions and take actions independently, such as a legislative resolution empowering a president to take necessary measures.
What made America the “world’s first universal nation” in the 18th and 19th centuries?
Diversity of immigrant cultures, with no dominant American character.
Why did Benjamin Franklin fear Germanification?
He wrote “justified Anglo-Saxon fears” in 1751. He believed German immigrants refused to adopt English customs and language, threatening Anglo-Saxon culture. German reluctancy to adopt the English language.
Define “Anglification” in the context of early U.S. cultural anxieties.
The expectation that immigrant groups assimilate to English language, customs, and values. (with as little own material melted into the pot as possible)
Why was mass immigration seen as a danger to cultural pluralism?
Fear that immigrants would preserve their own customs instead of blending into a unified American culture. Moreover, Germans, for example, actively building their own cultural and linguistic spheres and communities, are seen as a potential threat. Nein, nein, nein, Frualeines.
