One can wear one's culture loosely, like an overcoat resting on one's shoulders, or wear it tightly, like a belted and hooded ankle-length raincoat. The latter may, to a substantial degree, be akin to a woman who prefers to be clad, in a Western nation, in a burqa in public, implying separation and a preferred isolation.
It can be argued that, in a free country, members should be free to dress as they wish, and possess the right not to be an integral component of the many, or to co-operate or congregate with those not like them. That is, such members would have the right only to co-exist (but not integrate) with those not like them.
How would such people view the nation of which they are part? That it is quite acceptable to enjoy the identity and security provided by a sovereign nation-state without relating in a socially meaningful manner with 'others' in the nation?
In one country today, a religious sect is reportedly exempt from paying tax. In another country, another religious sect lives a lifestyle significantly at variance with the rest of that nation. In yet another country, a particular sect pays tax, but will not work for the government in administration, civic protection or defence. There is no inter-communal tension in these nations; co-existence is possible without visible prejudice.
In a relatively new nation, by claiming to be the founder tribe, the majority tribe receives the benefit of affirmative-action policies which significantly tilt the playing field away from the horizontal. There is inter-communal tension. In a number of modern nations, a particular tribe seeks to avoid marriage between its members and others; and will not accept new members by conversion. There is no tension, as the members of this tribe are integrated with other tribes in ordinary life.
Then there are a few tribes conjoined by a shared faith, some of whose leaders seek sharia law, as immigrants in a secular nation which historically has been a Christian nation; this approach is not well received. As well, there are immigrant tribes who seek to transpose all their traditional practices, some of which are not intrinsically tied to their religion; they want what the host-nation offers, but wish to retain their traditional practices unaltered.
Is this not a cultural 'human rights' issue confronting, even challenging, a stance now developing in advanced immigrant-receiving nations that ethno-cultural diversity needs, in the interests of national identity and stability (compare and contrast with the former Yugoslavia), to become progressively integrated (but not assimilated) into a coherent people?
Integration is a like a mixed salad, a gestalt, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is also comparable to the components of a rich palatable soup, giving texture and flavour to the soup, with each component making a sufficient contribution, but without losing itself. Assimilation, however, is like a blended soup where all the ingredients are totally absorbed into the final product. I doubt if any immigrant-seeking nation seeks this outcome as current policy.
In time, assimilation may be the eventual outcome where there has been no input of new tribes. In the modern world, however, with so much migration, especially through asylum-seeking pressures, or because of a political integration of nations, a country composed of unintegrated tribes would not be a cohesive nation.
Most importantly, equal opportunity, if already available (as in Australia), may not be as accessible to marginal tribal communities were their members to be unwilling to modify those aspects of their inherited traditions and behaviours which are not in tune with the social mores and conventions of the host people. Cultural adaptation would enable speedier integration, either through accessing available equal opportunities or by demonstrating the willingness of the immigrant community to share their lives more fully with others already in the nation.
For this to happen, the host people would also need to be equally open to sharing their lives equitably. Such co-operative adaptation will not deny the preservation of the private features of religion-based cultures. That is, people can continue to pray as the wish and celebrate their festivals as they wish but without intruding into the private spaces of others.
But this requires the understanding and co-operation of the relevant priesthoods and their political affiliates.
Raja Arasa Ratnam's books on ethno-religious cultures and related issues are Destiny Will Out, The Karma of Culture, Hidden Footprints of Unity, The Dance of Destiny, and Musings: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders on Australian society. Refer http://www.dragonraj.com, which also lists his articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment