New ground broken in identifying myths about cultural diversity

WORLD VIEW: The United Nations Human Development report for 2004 published this month has received a good deal of attention here for highlighting that while Ireland is now tenth in the world out of 177 states on its index of development, continuing inequalities and relatively low spending on health and education mar the overall picture.

Government representatives say some of the figures used are out of date and quarrel with its use of relative measures of inequality rather than more appropriate absolute ones which show a rapid decline in poverty. Economists say it is misleading to use figures based on gross domestic product, which exaggerate Irish wealth due to the unusually strong presence of profit repatriation by foreign companies. A better measure is gross national product, which shows a more modest performance - though it is not clear how much this would affect Ireland's overall position in the tables.

It is good to see the report used in political debate, since its methodology has developed in statistical and analytical sophistication since first published in 1990. The main analytical theme this year, "cultural liberty in today's diverse world", also deserves public discussion, since it breaks new ground on the subject and how to measure it.

Ireland features quite prominently as a country with major historical experience of minority-majority conflict and adjustment to migration and multiculturalism. Its authors and advisers are among the world's most prominent social and political researchers on these issues, among them Amartya Sen (its main inspiration), Will Kymlicka, Alfred Stepan, Brendan O'Leary and Rajiv Bhargava.

The report identifies five myths about cultural diversity and its management, drawing on recent research and efforts to quantify it. People's ethnic identities, first of all, do not compete with their attachment to the state. This is because individuals can and do have multiple and complementary identities, including ethnicity, gender, religion and race as well as citizenship. People can and do choose their identities - and individual choice is growing along with human development.

This cuts across the pattern of 20th century nation-building, when states aimed to build culturally homogeneous states with singular identities, often by extermination, repression and assimilation policies leaving lasting scars, or by refusing recognition of differences and political participation by minorities.

Recognising cultural identities and including them can be shown to be a more effective way of dealing with the issue. In this perspective it is no longer anomalous to discover that individuals in multinational polities overwhelmingly say that feel both Flemish and Belgian, Catalan, Basque and Spanish, Canadian and Quebecker, Irish or Scottish and British, rather than choosing one singular identity. They do not see it as a zero-sum game and nor is it.

Secondly, there is little real empirical evidence that ethnic groups are prone to violent conflict with one another, creating a trade-off between respecting diversity and sustaining peace. The report comes out strongly against these culturalist explanations, drawing on research which shows other factors such as economic inequality, cultural oppression and struggles over land and power normally underlie such conflicts. Cultural identity can all too easily be mobilised in them; but it can also be managed harmoniously if the right approach is taken.

The argument that defending cultural identity necessarily involves defending traditional practices is the third myth addressed. Multiculturalism, in this perspective, is committed to defending traditional practices and leaderships, including those that violate human rights. But this assumes culture is a frozen set of values or a singular essence to be discovered, rather than being constantly created and adapted to new realities, including by inter-cultural dialogue or argument. It also assumes a relativism about universal human rights that is not necessary. It is quite possible to defend both.

Fourthly, it is regularly but falsely argued that ethnically diverse countries are less able to develop. Malaysia (with 62 per cent Malays, 30 per cent Chinese and 8 per cent Indian citizens) contradicts this, for example, in the period 1970-90.

Mauritius (with a diverse population of African, Indian, Chinese and European background and mixture of 50 per cent Hindu, 30 per cent Christian and 17 per cent Muslim) ranks 64th in the human development index, the highest in sub-Saharan Africa.

The final myth identified is one of the most enduring in everyday politics as well as social science research - that some cultures are more likely than others to make development progress because they have inherently more beneficial values. But there is little evidence from historical studies or statistical analysis for this, however attractive cultural determinism is as an explanation for the Protestant ethic, Islamic backwardness or Confucian traditionalism - or for the incompatibility of Muslim cultures and democracy in the current idiom.

The policies recommended by the report to counter these myths and address the issues involved hinge on a distinction between two forms of cultural exclusion. Living mode exclusion denies recognition and accommodation to a lifestyle a group would choose to have and insists that they live exactly like all others in society. Examples would be religious intolerance or insisting that immigrants drop their cultural practices and language. The second is participation exclusion, when people are excluded by virtue of their gender, ethnicity or religion.

They overlap, of course. The report draws on the Minorities at Risk data set in the University of Maryland to calculate that 129 groups with around 518 million people around the world face living mode exclusion, while 191 groups with 832 million people faced participation exclusion from economic or political structures.

It surveys contemporary ways to harness recognition and participation to democracy, including for indigenous peoples such as the Inuits in Canada and the New Zealand Maoris. It strongly supports asymmetrical federal arrangements such as apply in Spain or Malaysia.

It deals with legal pluralism, language policies and how socio-economic policies can address such exclusions. It appeals for the development of universal human rights and the need to ensure they apply to immigrants in a time of growing globalisation. It deserves a wide hearing.

pgillespie@irish-times.ie