The Road to Cultural Pluralism

cultural assimilation, transculturalism, and cultural pluralism

This is part of a thesis series within the boundaries between cultures- exploring how participatory design can empower a community and culture at risk. Read the introduction.

Considering the range of values and perspectives of different social groups, three ways toward the realization and advancement of cultural diversity will be analyzed- cultural assimilation, transculturalism, and pluralism. Focusing this thesis on Gullah Geechee culture, as well as their relationship with the dominant mainland culture, allows for these models to be expressed through a black/white, or outsider/insider binary. The cultures of racial minorities in the United States, like the Gullah Geechee, are complex. Eric Yamamoto (1999) explains that “a group may identify and separate its own (historically rooted) culture from a dominant (out there) culture, even as the minority culture is being reshaped by influences of a dominant culture and even though those influences defy easy description”. Although a minority’s cultural values may be shaped by interactions with outsider cultural traditions, values do exist that are only regarded by themselves; many of which stemming from African American history, present-day racism, racial discrimination, and racial exploitation. However, both dominant and minority culture hold core common cultural values- such as family, religion, and education (Brooks, 2012). The question still stands- “When the values of a dominant and minority culture clash, how might social groups mix, or at the very least, coexist?”

Model by: John W Berry —Two contrasting, usually implicit, models of cultural group relations in plural societies (and institutions). In the ‘Melting Pot’ (or mainstream minority) on the left, the view is that there is (or should be) one dominant society, on the margins of which are various minority groups; these groups typically remain there, unless they are incorporated as indistinguishable components into the mainstream. In ‘Cultural Pluralism’ (or the multicultural view) on the right , there is a national social framework (the larger society) that accommodates the interests and needs of numerous cultural groups, and which are fully incorporated as being valued.

Cultural Assimilation

It is essential in identifying the differences between and dilemmas within each way of implementing cultural diversity, looking first at cultural assimilation. In this model, the governing mindsets remain that of the dominant culture- white middle-class, whose values are preserved and control the mainstream. And any transmission of values is usually a linear one-way integration from majority to minority. Although the masses can be white, black, yellow, brown, or mixed, cultural diversity is implemented at the lowest level- coexistence or representation, calculated by the diversity in physical appearances rather than the diversity of voices. (Brooks, 2012). This can be observed in politics, fashion, media, marketing, and so on. A slow approach to racial justice is preferred over boldness; liberty over equality; “get over it” over the memory of slavery and Jim Crow. Cultural assimilation is problematic; with American society reluctant to tolerate contrasting cultural traditions, pressures still persist on minorities in having to minimize outward signs of difference (Brooks, 2012). When aspiring to embrace cultural diversity, Brooks concludes “The dilemma is essentially this: must blacks suffer the consequences of assimilation- the inevitable displacement and even degradation of black pride and heritage- for a piece of the pie? Must blacks suffer one form of subordination (cultural subordination) to alleviate another form of subordination (socioeconomic subordination)?”.

Cartoon from: The Sun, 1969

Transculturalism

In seeking cultural convergence, transculturalism enables each social group to bring their values together in forming a unified mainstream culture. Unlike assimilation’s one-way integration between minority to majority, this model aims to eliminate the boundaries between them. However, in the creation of one cultural homogeneity, each group will have to relinquish some, if not most, of their own identity- characteristics that define their uniqueness (Brooks, 2012). Minority groups may find this difficult embracing- a mainstream of unity rather than equality, “surrendering their identity to a marginalizing mainstream culture” (Brooks, 2012). The dilemma, for blacks in particular, is defined by Brooks (2012) as being that “the mainstream culture may not be as welcoming for blacks as it is for other racial minorities, and, for those blacks who are let in, success may to a large extent depend on their ability to develop racial insensitivity of a black immigrant”.

-Aldo Leopold

Cultural Pluralism

Unlike the cultural coercion in assimilation or the homogenic culture of transculturalism, pluralism is a culture of respect, equality, and diverse identities. It encourages each group to sustain their ethnic and racial distinctions. Rather than integrating toward one mainstream or having one dominant mainstream integrate, this model consists of many legitimate and integrated mainstreams alike. Acknowledging that American culture is multifaceted, each group whether majority or minority is agreed equal respect in its influence, not attempting to merge or segregate diversity (Brooks, 2012). When establishing respect, it is critical to recognize the difference between ‘good’ and ‘authentic’. Mutual respect is permissible only to a group’s good cultural expressions; authenticity does not automatically classify a trait as being good. Take the topic of ‘thuggery’ in ‘gangta rap’ for example. Although qualifying as “authentic black youth music”, Brooks (2012) argues that it represents ‘bad’ culture by promoting “dysfunctional, self-defeating, misogynistic, and racist behaviors and values”. So too, prior to the civil rights movement, black face was considered an authentic part of white-middle-class culture. Then, and even more so now, it has no redeeming value, indicating itself as ‘bad’ American culture. Having neither beneficial, life-affirming, nor freedom-giving value, cultural expressions of this kind should not be entitled respect (Brooks, 2012). As Aldo Leopold (1968) reminds us, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” Regardless of being authentic, they seek to restrict rather than support our human dignity and freedom.

-Kwame Appiah

In choosing to embrace, exercise, and support cultural identity, one should not be pressured into feeling illegitimate or ‘un-American’ (Brooks, 2012). On preserving culture, Kwame Appiah (2010) states, “If we want to preserve a wide range of human conditions because it allows free people the best chance to make their own lives, we can’t enforce diversity by trapping people within differences they long to escape”. Like assimilation and transculturalism, cultural pluralism is not without its weaknesses. The question stands: Should minorities commit their time, energy, and money to an endeavor that runs the risk of inadvertently leading them to the doorstep of cultural assimilation (Brooks, 2012)?

Explore other posts in this series:

1. The Power in Cultural Diversity
2. The Road to Cultural Pluralism
3. Integrating Translucent Acculturation
4. Permeable Membranes
5. Hybridity, Vulnerability, and Authenticity
6. The Gullah Geechee Community
7. Culture at Risk

Bibliography

Brooks, R. L., & The Hegeler Institute. (2012). Cultural Diversity: It’s All About the Mainstream. Monist, 95(1), 17–32.

Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac.

Appiah, K. A. (2010). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Reprint edition). W. W. Norton & Company.