George Papadopoulos, former head of the Ethnic Affairs Commission.
Dr Katharine Betts, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Swinburne; author of Ideology and Immigration.
Professor Fazal Rizvi, Education, Monash; commentator on ethnic affairs.
Terry Lane, broadcaster and social commentator.
Papadopoulos:
There is no agreed definition for the word "Multiculturalism". The term has been progressively devalued since its introduction as policy in the 1970s. This is due to tension existing in Australian government policy between nationalism and Multiculturasm.
"Free speech" often means reactionary discourse which is backward-looking, racist and xenophobic. Xenophobia, the fear of the stranger or "the other", leads to racism.
Multiculturalism is a form of social pluralism, a recognition that we are all "the other". It is a recognition and understanding of the rights of "the other", including the various ethnic and cultural groups.
We are witnessing the end of Multiculturalism. We must choose another path, and this is an opportunity to explore crucial social issues. For example, Aboriginality is outside of Multiculturalism because Multiculturalism represents the interests of European invaders. Aboriginality can be included in structural pluralism. Structural pluralism is a framework of democratic society within which various social structures and understandings can exist.
Betts:
Free speech will eventually take us to the truth. It is part of the process of gathering facts amid the frauds and myths, and testing our theories against those facts. This process can be painful to some. Measuring the cost against the benefit is usully only possible with hindsight.
Some social institutions are harmful, so cannot survive free speech. Others are benign, but too fragile to withstand examination.
Multiculturalism is "soft". It relies on tolerance and acceptance out of the good will of hosts, and hard work. Multiculturalism is "hard" if it requires government support - this indicates problems between society and Multiculturalism. These problems may include some unpleasant aspects.
What are the side effects? Does Multiculturalism promote social harmony? Is it broadly supported? What implications does it have for other policy areas? Who gains and who loses? Is Multiculturalism a "status belief" for intellectuals? Has it arise by political manoeuvring and vote-buying, or because it provides a career structure for ethnic leaders? The process of examination may harm both "old Australians" and ethnic groups. But no social institution is sacrosanct and beyond investigation.
To survive, Multiculturalism needs good intrinsic content, and extrinsic features with wide appeal.
Rizvi:
Much criticisms of Multiculturalism imply that we can abandon it and return to the 1950s and 60s myth. This is a naive suggestion. We cannot abandon Multiculturalism, and there is no going back.
Multiculturalism is a strategy for managing inter-cultural relations. It does not give ethnic groups any real political power - there are very few good jobs or political careers for people with ethnic backgrounds. For migrant groups, it provides a symbolic resource, belonging, and the removal of barriers to participation. For the general community, it provides cultural and linguistic diversity, and national identity.
Multiculturalism is a political contract which cannot easily be breached. It is not just a domestic matter. In the global community, there is no "superior" culture and all nations are cultural hybrids. The global flows of knowledge, culture and people have led to this hybridisation of cultures.
Multiculturalism is not just Australian. It is globally valued, as evidenced by international human rights conventions. The rejection of Multiculturalism leads to isolationism.
Lane:
There is a conflict between Multiculturalism and free speech, and Multiculturalism will triumph. Tribalism is on the rise.
Panhumanism has at times been considered the ultimate goal of humanity. Martin Luther King was panhumanist, but Malcolm X reversed this with his rhetoric about ethnic pride.
Multiculturalism means permanent tribal separateness and exclusivity. This can only survive in tolerant societies. Ironically, tolerance is not encouraged by Multiculturalism, because Multiculturalists are opposed to free speech. Singapore is an example of a society where Multiculturalism is maintained by suppression.
Multiculturalism is the fragmentation of our society. The attachment of the citizen becomes stronger to the tribe than to the nation or to humanity.
Summary:
The question "Can Multiculturalism survive the rise of 'Free Speech'?" implies conflict between the two principles: Multiculturalism and Free Speech. Of the four speakers, only Terry Lane believes conflict between the two principles was inherent. Two other speakers, Katharine Betts and George Papadopoulos, believe that Free Speech could damage Multiculturalism.
Only George Papadopoulos believes that Multiculturalism will not survive - but it may be replaced by "Structural Pluralism". Katharine Betts believes it is at risk. Professor Rizvi believes that Multiculturalism must survive because we have no other choice. Terry Lane believes not only will Multiculturalism survive, it will defeat Free Speech.
This summary copyright© Evan Ling
