Cultural diversity without the state: How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

Master

Reference

Cultural diversity without the state: How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for

cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

VOUILLAMOZ, Michael

Abstract

An intellectual journey dedicated to investigating (state) multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state in order to theorize an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to the phenomenon of cultural diversity imperative to the former two motivated primarily by the unsettling and increasing lack of separation between culture and politics in the Western world.

Prior to this, one had entertained the idea of tackling the political puzzle of the rise of political correctness and the related erosion of the freedom of expression as noted by Trevor Phillips in his documentary. The increased presence of politically incorrect and controversial personalities, however, in the political and cultural landscape of the Western world has not brought about a more tolerant climate for objectionable ideas nor a greater degree of diversity of opinions being debated in a civilized manner. Instead, the conflict between different political and cultural groups with distinct identities continues to escalate.

VOUILLAMOZ, Michael. Cultural diversity without the state: How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?. Master : Univ. Genève, 2018

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:102208

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

Cultural Diversity Without The State:

How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

Maîtrise en science politique Janvier 2018

Michael Vouillamoz

Sous la direction de Prof. Matteo Gianni Juré: Jérôme Grand

Université de Genève

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Gianni for his support, guidance, and most of all open-mindedness considering the heterodox nature of the

theoretical framework that this work involves. Not for once had he discouraged me to pursue this research project on the grounds of the impracticalities of the political system proposed to ever come into realization nor on any other grounds for that matter.

Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the great deal of intellectual debt that I owe to those who have written extensively on the school of thought of anarcho-capitalist

libertarianism. I would also like to thank my parents for my culturally diverse upbringing.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for friends and acquaintances with whom I can engage in civilized political discussions despite the diverse array of cultures, ideologies, and identities that we have.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction, Problematization, and Research Question ……… 3

1.1 Thesis Outline ……… 6

2. Operationalization of Key Concepts and Existing Literature ………. 7

2.1 Culture ……….. 9

2.2 The Ethnonationalist/Alt-right Approach to Culture ……….. 14

2.3 (State) Multiculturalism & the Multicultural Democratic State ……… 20

3. Multiculturalist Political Theorists and Arguments ……… 23

3.1 Kymlicka ……….. 23

3.2 Taylor ……… 27

4. Cultural Diversity ……… 30

4.1 Kukathas’ Classical Liberal Multiculturalism ……….. 36

4.2 The Problems of Cultural Diversity ………... 37

5. Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism ……….. 41

5.1 Natural law, Natural rights, and the Freedom of Expression ………. 43

5.2 Self-ownership ……….. 46

5.3 The non-aggression principle ……….. 48

5.4 The State and Democracy ……… 49

5.5 Voluntarism and Secession ……….. 53

5.6 Nations by Consent ……….. 56

6. Synthesis of Ideas and Conclusion ……… 59

7. Bibliography and Other Sources ……… 62

1. Introduction, Problematization, and Research Question

“Politics is Downstream from Culture.” (Breitbart, Andrew)¹

Whether an observation or a prophetic vision of the current state of political affairs that was to come after his death, whether one enjoys or absolutely despises the content of the news website that he founded, it would be ill-advised for anybody engaged in the study of politics to be oblivious to the symbiotic relationship between culture and politics, especially in this day and age. As it happens, if one follows the news at all, one will be constantly reminded of the fact that a pop culture icon was elected against experienced career politicians as the so called leader of the free world in the shape of Donald Trump. To add to that, Steve Bannon, the person central to Trump’s campaign strategy and his administration until his unglamorous dismissal was the successor to Andrew Breitbart at the right-wing news outlet (Sarlin, 2016).

Indeed, if one looks back at history, the lack of separation between culture and politics is not at all a novelty. Even inheritors of ancient civilizations have in modern times not been immune to using both violent and non-violent political means in the quest for cultural legitimacy and dominance as the rivalry between the Communists and the Nationalists in China can attest to (Wachman, 1994).

What is new however, is the violent escalation of identitarian political divisions along the lines of cultural and ethnic backgrounds in a liberal democratic society that is the United States, which was supposed to be and had indeed for longer than not been able to reconcile divisive factors that are prone to politicization. Long gone are the days of extreme political forces not resorting to violence in order to achieve change as when the Supreme Court ruling in favour of an anti-Semitic group’s right to march through a predominantly Jewish

community resulted in the organizers’ cancellation of the event (Barnum, 1982). Instead, this environment in which a diversity of cultures and identities exists witnessed the violent clash between white nationalists and their extreme left opponents in Charlottesville this year culminated in the death of a protester being ran over by a car (Carissimo, 2017). In addition, the electoral statistics of the last U.S. Presidential Election in 2016, which indicated that the majority of “white voters” voted for Trump while the majority of “non-white voters” voted for Hillary Clinton further highlights the societal divide of a culturally and ethnically diverse

1 This quote was referred to in an article published on Breitbart.com by Meyers, L. (2011, August 22).

society (Henley, 2016). For those who have any knowledge of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, which has given rise to the term Balkanization, there is little reason to be optimistic about a political system that does not guarantee the absolute right of secession of local political communities with their distinct cultures (Pringle, 2016). This can be

demonstrated in the United States Supreme Court’s 1869 ruling against Texas’ right to unilaterally declare secession (Murray, 2003) and the later on suppression of Black Nationalist secession movements with the use of state force (FBI, 2016). Therefore, as a political scientist, it is not at all beyond the scope of one’s field of study to seek a peaceful way to deal with cultural diversity and the preservation of culture as neither has rarely flourished during times of violent conflicts throughout human history. It thus comes as no surprise that there is indeed a specific branch within the field of political science dedicated to the subject matter of multiculturalism although the policy proposals and implications that it has generated have yet to successfully create an environment for cultural diversity to flourish without political conflict.

On the contrary, Western European leaders such as David Cameron (Kuenssberg, 2011) and Angela Merkel (Evans, 2010) have not been shy to declare the failure of multiculturalism while the cautionary phrase “sleepwalking to segregation” in reaction to the 7 July 2005 London bombings (The Guardian, 2005) has become a self-fulfilling prophecy with the rise of domestic terrorism originating from ghettoized neighborhoods in European regions such as Luton and Molenbeek. As the Mayor of the second city explained in the aftermath of a terror attack, the lack of diversity amongst the immigrant population within the neighborhood has been “one of the main difficulties” when it comes to combating “the growing threat of homegrown terror on its streets” (Capatides, 2016). In spite of all of this, however, there has been a lack of literature on the topic that does not involve state intervention in cultural affairs while being committed to the non-initiation of force. Instead, as will be demonstrated later on in the body of this work, existing literature on the subject matter tends to favour using the state and its institutions to foster cultural diversity and facilitate the preservation of minority cultures due to a particular view of culture that is not always reflective of the realities of the world we live in. This is then the prime motivation for the inquiry taking place in this paper aimed at contributing to the field of political science by devising and arguing in favour of an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to cultural diversity as the school of thought is

wholeheartedly committed to the non-aggression principle while rejecting the very existence of a centralized state authority (Rothbard, 2006, p. 27).

By the end of this paper, one will have provided an answer to the following research question:

How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

To specify, while the said society in the research question will be one of purely theoretical nature, the cultural diversity and the conflicts to which one will attempt to apply the theoretical framework will be true to and rooted in the world in which we live. This means that the conceptualization of the elements central to cultural diversity such as culture and multiculturalism will contain references to pertinent real life phenomena. In addition to the motivations for taking upon such a task expressed earlier in the introduction, this paper is also a reaction to the inconsistencies amongst the existing multiculturalist theorists’

conceptions of the state and its proper role in regards to cultural diversity. An example of this is their acknowledgement of the lack of neutrality “with respect to the language and culture of immigrants” of the state, which is argued to represent and reinforce the culture of the majority population, while advocating for the expansion of the same liberal democratic state in order to cater to cultural diversity (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 11). Furthermore, one also takes great issue with the incoherent nature of the arguments of right-wing nationalists regarding the continuation and preservation of culture rooted in an ill-conceived notion of what culture entails. This will be demonstrated later on with the use of historical examples of ethnically homogenous authoritarian regimes that have actually caused the loss of aspects of their respective national cultures. This is especially pertinent within the context of this paper and the set of ideas involved as several high-profile members of the rising right-wing nationalist movement such as Richard Spencer and Christopher Cantwell were previously libertarians have been able to attract more people who are anti-state to the movement (Weigel, 2017).

Simply calling them racists, a label which many of them would not reject, with emotional outrage will not prevent the movement from growing at the cost of social stability while propagating its misguided understandings of how cultures can be preserved. What must be done instead, is to demonstrate that the political system for which they argue in favour cannot bring about the preservation of culture due to their narrow conceptualization of culture.

While libertarians would indeed defend the right of private persons and establishments to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their racial/ethnic backgrounds (Hoppe, 2001, p. 140) the authoritarian nature of the political system that would be in place in order to reinforce the racial/ethnic and cultural purity desired by right-wing nationalists is

undoubtedly antithetical to libertarian values. As will be illustrated in the respective section later on, in the event of the creation of a privatized community of which only

racially/ethnically and culturally homogenous people decided to voluntarily become members, there would be no need for any authority to reinforce the so called racial/ethnic and cultural purity if such a thing can be reinforced at all from a perspective that goes beyond Western democracies.

Before proceeding with the analysis and presentation of the main theoretical frameworks within which this paper will operate, one will provide the reader with an outline of this paper in the following section.

1.1 Thesis Outline

As noted in the introduction, while various political forces have defended their positions by placing an emphasis on their positive effects on culture, the ways in which they view culture and its related concepts can differ greatly from each other and are not always reflective of reality such as the equivalency drawn between race and culture. In the first instance then, one will devise a more comprehensive conceptualization of culture that builds upon an overly simplistic view of culture by making use of not only the assertions of political theorists writing on the subject matter but also considering how culture manifests itself in the world we live in. Having done that, this will help one to demonstrate with the additional use of historical cases as to why the arguments of the alt-right ethnonationalists are ill-conceived.

After this, one will present the reader with a conceptualization of multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state based upon the ideas of the former found in existing literature and by looking at real life examples of the ways in which states respond to cultural diversity.

Following that, one will delve further into the main arguments put forward by multiculturalist political theorists in favour of state actions exemplified within the scope of this paper by Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor. Throughout this section, one will also take notice when the statements of these political theorists are in disaccord with the previously established

conceptualization of culture by applying the same critical lenses applied to the arguments of the alt-right ethnonationalists. Based upon the observations made in this section and the previously devised characteristics of culture then, one will proceed to discuss as to what cultural diversity entails while also illustrating how it has historically been and continues today to be capable of inspiring both violent and non-violent conflicts. Within this section,

one will also present the classical liberal approach to cultural diversity devised by Chandran Kukathas, which in addition to the inadequacies of state responses to the phenomenon noted in the same section, will further help to justify the inquiry into an anarcho-capitalist

libertarian response to it. Finally, then, one will present the key concepts of the anarcho- capitalist variant of libertarianism while considering their implications for cultural diversity and its problems before arguing as to how the principles of the school of thought could provide the foundations for a societal environment that allows for cultural diversity to thrive while avoiding violent conflicts. In the concluding section, one will reflect upon the

discussions that have taken place throughout the paper while considering their potential implications for further discussions of other political problems.

2. Operationalization of Key Concepts and Existing Literature

Since the political theorists pertaining to the subject matter of multiculturalism can hold different interpretations of the key concepts such as culture and multiculturalism, one has made the deliberate choice to make use of overly generalized definitions of such concepts as foundations for a more comprehensive conceptualization of culture and multiculturalism. The reason for which this is done is to avoid any influence from the author’s own interpretation of these concepts on the way in which they are defined for the purpose of this paper. In essence, the aim of this section is to provide third party conceptualization of culture and

multiculturalism in order to eliminate as many ideological biases as possible since as alluded to previously they can lead to understandings of culture that are divorced from reality. To further elaborate, this is important because while certain conceptualizations of culture might not be entirely invalid, they do not provide us with a full picture of what characteristics culture possesses. For example, while the close association between race/ethnicity and culture propagated by right-wing nationalists and ironically left-wing extremists who condemn

“cultural appropriation” is not entirely untrue as far as our world is concerned, this

characteristic is most certainly not the only thing that defines culture (Oates, 2017). In the event of the multiculturalist political theorists being discussed in the following section

holding definitions of culture and multiculturalism in stark contrast to those postulated in this section, this will be articulated in an explicit manner and one will take it into consideration.

Once the definitions are put forward, one will make use of both contemporary examples and historical accounts pertaining to the development of culture and its succession in order to construct a comprehensive analysis as to how culture is created, interrupted and sustained.

For the purpose of this paper, one intends to mainly make use of but will not limit oneself to historical accounts from the modern era during which there has been demonstrable tensions between the state and cultural affairs. The choice of historical accounts of political entities that correspond to certain theoretical approaches to culture rather than political analyses of how culture develops and interacts with the state is intentional as to minimize the

confounding effects of ideological prejudices regarding these particular historical periods on the analysis of this paper. For example, while some people might praise the scientific and intellectual developments that occurred during the Weimar Republic (Gordon & McCormick, 2013), those who sympathize with the National Socialists will be more likely to regard that period of history with absolute contempt due to the relaxed cultural attitude towards

pornography and prostitution that they label as “degeneracy” (O'Shaughnessy, 2017).

Similarly on the extreme left, while the Cultural Revolution waged by Mao in China can be regarded by some Marxists such as Alain Badiou (Gray, 2014) as a period of cultural

innovation, many others would argue that it was a period during which traditional culture was utterly destroyed (University of Nottingham China Policy Institute, 2016). Conversely, however, since authoritarian regimes based upon the ideas and ideologies espoused by political forces that seek to provide a solution to the current problems of culturally and ethnically diverse societies no longer de facto exist in the Western world, the choice of historical periods to analyze will be motivated by the types of states that existed during those times. To clarify, this means that in order to evaluate the claims of current ethno nationalists, one must focus on historical periods during which ethnically homogenous authoritarian states were present in order to demonstrate that the approach cannot be viable alternative to

anarcho-capitalist libertarianism when it comes to fostering the development and preservation of culture. This evaluation will also be done to the arguments of those in favour of the

multicultural democratic state by taking into consideration the current state of cultural affairs and diversity within societies that have adopted the political system.

As these two extreme examples are presented, one can already foresee the raising of another important question as to what kind of criterion ought to be applied to cultural artifacts in order to evaluate the political systems under which they came into being. To put it simply, such standards do not exist as the level of cultural development throughout human history has always been relative in comparison to the preceding and or proceeding historical periods. As a result, one will not be passing judgments regarding what is a “good culture” or “bad culture”

within the scope of this paper. However, this would not, for example, prevent one from

arguing that the lack of separation between culture and politics in Soviet Russia rendered it a relatively poor environment for cultures to flourish in comparison to the Western

democracies in which many Russian artists sought refuge. That being said, what one has decided to do then, is to devise a comprehensive set of characteristics possessed by culture that is grounded in both various theoretical approaches to culture and how it manifests itself in real life societies. It is then this that will be the basis for evaluating political systems in terms of the extent to which they allow for cultures to flourish by not engaging in cultural planning nor the suppression of the freedom of expression. Furthermore, having a working definition of culture also allows one to better elucidate another concept that is integral to this paper, cultural diversity.

2.1 Culture

Drawing inspiration from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Song, 2016) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Rodriguez, n.d.) from the University of Tennessee, Martin, which are both peer-reviewed academic resources, the first characteristic of culture that can be ascertained is that of being “constitutive of personal identity” (Festenstein 2005).

Taking into consideration the emphasis placed upon minority groups by multiculturalist political theorists, the definition of culture ought also include being constitutive of group identities, which are ultimately formed by persons i.e. individuals. Indeed, as put forth in the SEP evoking Amy Gutmann (2003), “identity politics” is a concept central to

multiculturalism. Attesting to this, is the rise of identitarian movements on both the extreme left and the ethnonationalist right within Western democratic societies that are culturally diverse. Examples of this include but are not limited to the rise of Eurosceptic right-wing nationalist political parties in Europe (Chakelian, 2017) and the resurgence of African American identity politics in the shape of the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States that are both based upon ethnic/racial identities (Winter & Weinberger, 2017).

Additionally, one could also take into consideration the various movements based on gender identities and sexual orientations. Due to the limited scope of this paper, however, one will not be discussing such movements.

In Will Kymlicka’s magnum opus Liberalism, Community, and Culture (1991), the

multiculturalist theorist does not make clear distinction between culture and identity either but elaborates on his view of cultures as “instrumentally valuable to individuals” (Song, 2016). Inspired by Rawls’ theory of justice, Kymlicka (1991, p. 166) views cultural

membership as a “primary good” and in a later work highlights the function of culture as

“contexts of choice”, which “provide meaningful options and scripts with which people can frame, revise, and pursue their goals” (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 89). In addition to providing a view of culture in relation to individuals, Kymlicka also discusses culture in terms of groups to which individuals can have a sense of belonging and with which they can identify

themselves to help them form a “basis of self-respect” (Song, 2016). Like many other multiculturalist political theorists, Kymlicka (1995, p. 109-111) also draws a distinction between majority and minority cultures within societies. Within such a dichotomy, members of minority cultures whether being national or immigrant minorities are at a disadvantage as the existing political and economic circumstances within a society often are in the advantage of members of the majority culture. Indeed, the argument that cultures can determine the social-economic and political advancements of diverse ethnic groups is also echoed by two of the most prominent African American free-market economists Walter E. Williams (2011) and Thomas Sowell (1983). What distinguishes these economists from the multicultural political theorists, however, is their opposition to the expansion of the state, which is required in order to guarantee the “group differentiated rights” justified within the majority versus minority paradigm (Banting & Kymlicka, 2006). Despite the discrepancies that exist amongst the ways in which different multiculturalist theorists such as Kymlicka (1995) and Taylor (1992) conceptualize the majority and the minority, the majority minority dichotomy is agreed upon and so is the contention that the latter is often at a disadvantageous position in comparison to the former. To elaborate, while Kymlicka (2007b, p. 4) considers the distinction between “a liberal majority and communitarian minorities”, Taylor (1992, p. 26) discusses the contrast between a “white” majority and non-white minorities especially within the context of

colonization. That being said, such discrepancies are not of great pertinence within the scope of this paper. According to Kymlicka (2007b, p. 6-7), “ethnic nations take the reproduction of a particular ethnonational culture and identity as one of their most important goals” while a

“societal culture tends to emphasize that it involves a common language and social institutions, rather than common religious beliefs, family customs or personal lifestyles”.

While the family’s role in the reproduction of culture within the framework of

multiculturalist political theorists is as demonstrated for example in the previous statement to some extent acknowledged, it is for some reason very often overlooked. Interestingly enough, despite their staunch opposition to multiculturalism and cultural diversity, alt-right

ethnonationalists also place an emphasis on the role of the family in preserving and reproducing culture and thus regards the rise of the identity politics of non-heterosexual relationships as a threat to the traditional family (Ehrenfreund, 2016). Within the libertarian framework, the family can be regarded as “anarchistic institution” that “requires no act of the state to bring it about” that would provide resistance to the expansion of the state, especially the welfare state as it would render it unnecessary, the implications of this in relation to

culture and its development will be investigated later on (Rockwell Jr, 1998). That being said, the relationship between family and culture is more frequently discussed when immigrant minorities are the subject matter as the state is regarded as perpetuating the liberal norms of the majority culture in Western societies while the immigrant minorities have to take the task of preserving their cultures and norms upon themselves. This phenomenon is most evident regarding the issue of the reinforcement of national languages used by the majority

population, through public institutions such as schools and participation in the market economy, placing immigrant minorities at a disadvantage and forcing them to sometimes choose between one and the other because the lack of state support (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 7).

At this point, one should have taken notice that there is not always a clear distinction between race/ethnicity and culture within the theoretical frameworks of multiculturalist thinkers as the two terms can sometimes be used in a interchangeable manner. This is due to not only the primarily collectivist rather than individualistic approaches to cultures as represented by groups in Kymlicka’s (2007a & 2007b) works and communities in Taylor’s (1992, p. 42) work but also a result of the later addition of a postcolonial/historical injustice perspective on multiculturalism in which the majority and minority populations in Western liberal

democracies are identified as white Europeans and non-whites respectively. Ironically, this association of race/ethnicity with culture has increasingly been adopted by right-wing ethnonationalists, also referred to as the alt-right, who regard multiculturalism and the arguments of multiculturalist political theorists as posing an existential threat to Western civilization (Reinhard, 2016). While one would not take issue with the view that people’s cultural identities can overlap with their ethnic/racial identities e.g. African Americans being associated with African American culture, Chinese Americans being associated with Chinese American culture, and etc, one must question the extent to which such a generalization can be applied to all cultures as discussed in this section. As a result, one will also treat the policy implications of such a view with critical lenses in the later sections. In addition, members of the alt-right also share an advocacy of the family albeit the more traditional form, which could be argued to be more prevalent amongst the immigrant population in the Western world than amongst the liberal individualistic majority, for its supposed capacity of

reproducing culture (Lim, 2018 ; Zill, 2016). To put it briefly, individuals who adhere to such views hold the belief that only the creation of an ethnically/racially homogenous authoritarian state can help preserve European/European American cultures (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). These individuals amongst whom the most prominent is Richard Spencer often have a

vocal online following but are not members of respected established academia and have not made peer reviewed publications. When one takes into consideration the controversial nature of their ideas and the respective policy implications, it is no surprise that the mere presence of such people being invited to speak on university campuses can provoke protests (Beckett, 2017). As far as this paper is concerned, this adds a degree of difficulty to the task of providing a coherence synthesis of their ideas. This will be elaborated in the later section dedicated to ethnonational state. In stark contrast to the views on culture presented thus far, the classical liberal and to some extent libertarian political theorist writing on the subject matter of multiculturalism Chandran Kukathas (2003, p. 79) contends that “all human

associations, including cultural groups, are not fixed but highly mutable things which change with economic, legal, and political circumstances”. Reiterating the notion that culture is mutable and susceptible to changes throughout his work theorizing diversity, Kukathas (2003, p. 213) further argues that the role of the state is not “to serve as the cultural architect” but to

“preserve order so that people might live freely together”. It is worth noting that although Kukathas view of culture is at odds with that of Kymlicka’s (2007b), which the former argues,

“divides the world more definitely into ‘societal cultures’”, Kukathas does not explicitly reject Kymlicka’s critique of the state as an institution that can favour one cultural group over another. Instead, Kukathas (2003, p. 214) postulates that the state is additionally also “with interests of its own”, which could be argued to mean that states can also have their own cultures whether political or not to varying degrees. For example, states can create symbols such as flags and coats of arms, construct architecture and erect monuments with and without the people’s wishes, and does not lend its support indiscriminately to the media.

Despite such criticisms, neither of these multiculturalist theorists nor indeed any other

political scientists writing on the subject matter such as Lægaard (2011) reject the notion that there is still a role for the state to play in cultural affairs. While this might not be at all

contentious when one observes the involvement of states in promoting and fostering cultural developments in real life societies, which is especially evident amongst diplomatic missions abroad that usually have a section dedicated to the promotion of their respective cultures, it becomes more problematic when one takes into consideration Kukathas’ conception of the state. Even without applying any theoretical framework, the simple fact that states have limited resources at their disposal in such a case would mean that at a certain point it must choose between allocating its resources to the promotion of its own interests or cultures over those of civil society and thus becoming incapable of supporting societal cultural

developments. Furthermore, as will be discussed more in depth in a later section, when one approaches the issue from an anarcho-capitalist libertarian perspective, which fundamentally rejects the institution of the state, the problem regarding its relationship with culture could also be used to construct an argument against the state.

As one arrives at the end of this section, one can conclude that the previous contention that the conception of culture differs between sets of political thoughts and theoretical

frameworks has indeed been demonstrated to be withstanding. In addition, having chosen a deliberately simplistic conception of culture as “constitutive of personal identity” as a point of departure and then proceeding to build upon it a more inclusive definition of culture by taking into consideration the diversity of viewpoints on the subject matter, one has produced an inclusive summary of the various characteristics of culture. The reason as to why this is especially important for this paper, as mentioned earlier on, is due to the fact that while various approaches to culture can individually make valid characterizations regarding culture, the characteristics underlined by each approach are not the only ones that can be made about culture. What this section has also demonstrated then, is the inadequacies and the limits of the ways in which the multiculturalists political theorists considered for this paper view culture, which will help to justify one’s critical approach later on to the political system inspired by their ideas, the multicultural democratic state. As a result, one was left with the task of developing a coherent synthesis of what culture entails within the scope and context of this paper in order to proceed with the evaluations of political systems in terms of the extent to which they respect the integrity of cultures and thus cultural diversity. The result of this is process is the following:

Cultures can hold intrinsic value,

Cultural memberships can provide people with a sense of well-being and belonging, Cultures can guide people’s decision making process,

Cultures are mutable and can change over time,

Cultures can overlap with race/ethnicity to varying extents, but the former does not equate to the latter

Cultures can be reproduced by families,

Cultures can be related to economic and political advancements, Cultures can be both individualistic and collectivist.

Cultural practices can be affected by state policies.

Before proceeding with the analyses, one finds it necessary to clarify as to why an anarcho- capitalist libertarian conception of culture is not included in the synthesis of this section since the theoretical framework is supposed to be central to this paper and thus its absence in this section might baffle the reader. The answer to this is firstly, as noted briefly in the

introduction is the ostensive lack of interest amongst this school of libertarians in engaging in cultural affairs and identity politics due to their uncompromising adherence to individualism.

Secondly, in a similar fashion to its treatment of human nature (Rothbard, 2006, p. 32), anarcho-capitalist libertarianism does not hold any restrictive view of culture but instead accepts it as it is and acknowledges that it does play a role in politics, economics, civil society and civilization in general (Rothbard, 1994, p. 1-2). To say the very least, an anarcho- capitalist libertarian would most certainly not regard cultural development as a legitimate justification for the existence of the state nor would it be an area in which the state ought to intervene if one had to exist. This will be explored more in depth in the later section

pertaining to the theoretical framework.

All that being said, in order to clearly demonstrate the analytical process making use of the set of characteristics of culture established in this section, one will commence with the least complex set of ideas with its corresponding political system by looking at the respective historical accounts, namely the ethnically/racially and culturally homogenous authoritarian state proposed by the alt-right ethnonationalists. In a similar fashion, one will also identify the problems with the multicultural democratic state influenced by the conceptualization of culture devised by multiculturalist political theorists in the respective section. Together, one hopes to demonstrate the varying extents to which state policies based upon narrowly defined conceptualizations of culture can produce results that are counterproductive to the flourishing of culture. Furthermore, one finds it important to refute the arguments of the ethnonationalist alt-right concerning culture as the political system based upon them is considered by

members of the movement as a viable alternative to multiculturalism (Levy, 2017).

2.2 The Ethnonationalist/Alt-right Approach to Culture

As previously mentioned, what is at the heart of the alt-right’s theoretical framework is the close association and one could even say interchangeability between race/ethnicity and culture. According to Richard Spencer, the figurehead of the movement who also claims to have coined the term alt-right or alternative right while having been unshy of his admiration

of National Socialist Germany, the survival of the white race and European culture can only be ensured by the creation of an ethnically homogenous white homeland (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). Within this theoretical framework, non-whites will be offered economic incentives to be voluntarily repatriated, which he calls “peaceful ethnic cleansing” (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). Implicit in this argument, is a supremacist attitude towards

race/ethnicity and culture, which is the antithesis of egalitarianism rejected by the alt-right. It thus comes as no surprise that the ethnonationalist alt-right utterly rejects multiculturalism as the latter is founded upon egalitarian principles, which will be discussed more in depth in the respective section later on. While the alt-right movement is primarily a reaction to the

perceived inadequacies of traditional conservatism in the USA and the neo-conservatism represented by the George W. Bush administration (Jackson, 2017), it can also be regarded as a rejection of the free market capitalism advocated by libertarians due to the latter’s

indifference towards race (Tucker, 2017). This is especially evident when one takes into consideration the libertarian past of many within the alt-right movement noted previously.

Like libertarians however, the alt-right also opposes neo-conservatism and its waging of foreign wars and military interventionism abroad as exemplified by Bush’s War on Iraq despite the differences in their reasons for this opposition. While libertarians are anti-war in general, the alt-right owes its non-interventionist attitude more to the isolationism that comes with the emphasis placed upon the ethno-state's own preservation. In an interview (Roaming Millennial, 2017a), Spencer provided his explanation as to why civic nationalism is

inadequate by arguing that due to the different historical experiences different racial groups have had to live through especially within the context of the USA, it is very difficult for them to share a collective identity and culture. For instance, while white Anglo-Saxon Americans could regard the founding of the nation as the beginning of freedom from British rule, African Americans would instead view it as nation built on slavery. As a result, Spencer argues that the ethnonationalism he advocates resolves this problem (Roaming Millennial, 2017b). Implicit in this argument, as noted previously about the ideology, is a lack of separation between people’s cultural and ethnic/racial identities. While the United States’

historical developments might indeed have rendered the relationship between such two identities more complex and intertwined than elsewhere in the world, one finds the absolute equation of the two not only ill-advised but also divorced from reality since not only “white”

Americans voted for Trump whom Spencer supported. It is no surprise however, that such a view would come from a collectivist ideology that disregards people’s individuality. That being said, the alt-right as many political movements tend to be, also has its own internal

divisions of which one is perfectly aware. However, within the scope of this paper, it will be discussed as representing the aforementioned ideas to which the most prominent members of the movement adhere. While the selection process of historical cases including ethnically homogenous authoritarian regimes might initially appear to be a simple task, the need for consideration for state policies that deliberately aim to engage in what Kukathas (2003, p.

214) would call “cultural planning” renders it to be a more painstaking one. Furthermore, since the modern alt-right and ethnonationalists operate within Western countries where they already are the majority population, this eliminates the selection of all the historical political regimes that had a racist minority rule such as Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. It must come as no surprise then that the first historical political case chosen is National Socialist Germany that has indeed been romanticized by many within the alt-right movement as seen in their adoption of the regime’s symbols such as the Roman salute (Graham, 2016). The second historical case, however, has not to the knowledge of the writer of this paper ever been used as an example of an ethnically homogenous authoritarian state that made deliberate attempts to engage in “cultural planning” in the name of preserving the respective ethnic culture. Unbeknownst to many in the Western world, the Nationalist Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek had more in common with the ally of their archenemy Imperial Japan than they would like to admit. Similar to National Socialist Germany, Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime was also preceded by an unstable democratic political entity that oversaw unprecedented cultural and scientific developments (Gu, 2001). Furthermore, both regimes manipulated the electoral system in order to put in place a one-party state and then declared a state of

emergency that granted the ruling party absolute power to suspend the constitution. As noted in Victor Klemperer’s The Language of the Third Reich (2001), Hitler’s regime deliberately modified the German language through propaganda in order to political and societal culture in order to strengthen the power of the state (Wegner, 2004). The lack of separation between country and party was diminished with dedicated effort in both cases while the Volks prefix was added to most societal and political institutions in National Socialist Germany, the Kuomin (literally meaning nation people in Chinese) prefix², which could also be seen in the Chinese name of the Nationalist Party Kuomintang, had the same application in Chiang Kai- Shek’s China and its institutions. Whilst the Chinese Nationalists did not engage in ethnic cleansing nor systematic genocidal practices, they did indeed make use of propaganda in order to label their political opposition, namely the communists as unpatriotic and un-Chinese

2 The writer of this paper is a native Mandarin Chinese speaker.

(Chiang, 1965) like Hitler’s regime did with their political opposition in Germany (von Mises, 2010, p.140). In addition, both regimes legitimized their rule by claiming to be the rightful successor of their respective ethnic cultures and civilizations (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d.; Wang, 2014). Consequently, this self-proclaimed cultural legitimacy was also one of the justifications for the acts of aggression committed by both regimes against their political opponents. Furthermore, both regimes practiced censorship extensively to eliminate the undesirable elements of their respective cultures that had come into existence organically but did not adhere to the regimes’ idealized and romanticized visions of these cultures. Examples of such practices range from the infamous book burnings administered by Joseph Goebbels and the censorship of books in Chiang Kai-Shek’s Taiwan (Wu, 2014). As a result, while these regimes claimed to be the inheritors and defenders of their cultures, they were in fact only preserving arbitrarily selected elements such as Nordic Mythology in Germany and the Confucian notion of respecting the elderly in Taiwan that were in favour of their rule while simultaneously being willfully ignorant to the weakening of other cultural elements such as the Judeo-Christian religions in Germany and the Chinese tradition of people revolting against their rulers who had become tyrants. In doing this, minority cultures that had historically contributed to the wealth of German and Chinese cultures were also heavily suppressed, rendering the cost for individuals to preserve their cultural memberships and their cultures elevated. While German Jews were sent to

concentration camps, people who dared to speak dialectic Chinese rather than the northern dialect of Mandarin Chinese in public places suffered from employment discrimination and public shaming as a part of Chiang Kai-Shek’s National Language Movement (Klöter, 2004).

What can also be found within this ethnonationalist model then, is the notion that people are to have certain rights on the basis of their cultural and ethnic/racial identities, which once again is not absent in the theoretical framework of multiculturalist political theorists although their arguments for this differs significantly from those of ethnonationalists as will be

discussed later. That being said, presented with such historical evidences, one would be inclined to concur with Taylor’s (1997, p. 34) contention that “the process of nation-building inescapably privileges members of the majority culture”. Indeed, as the decreasing number of mother tongue speakers of non-Mandarin Chinese dialects in Taiwan, where Chiang Kai- Shek’s regime ruled after his defeat at the hands of his rival communists Mao, can attest to, the regime that had set out to preserve and defend Chinese culture contributed to its

disintegration (Klöter, 2004). To make matters worse, linguists later on discovered that certain non-Mandarin Chinese dialects were in fact more akin to Classical Chinese as poems

written centuries ago rhymed better when recited in these dialects rather than in the forcefully standardized Mandarin Chinese, which had taken in foreign influences from the ruling

Manchurians (Mair, 2014). Luckily, as previously established how family can help preserve cultures, dialects being spoken at home and taught by parents prevented them from being completely extinct (Yueh, 2016, p. 30). The democratization and liberalization process that took place in Taiwan later on also allowed dialects to flourish without restrictions of its use in politics, films, literature and music. This very example demonstrates the lack of

understanding for cultures on the behalf of governments and the adverse effects when they engage in “cultural planning” motivated upon arbitrary ideological grounds. Equally keen on moralizing and preventing influences of elements that were regarded as foreign and alien from tainting its culture, Hitler’s regime arbitrarily labelled artworks and other cultural products such as music as degenerate and un-German (von Mises, 2010, p.140), especially those created by Jews and other “inferior races”. This lead to the destruction and loss of numerous pieces of art. The obsession with an artificial purity of culture is also prevalent amongst modern day alt-right ethnonationalists who would be in favour of political systems like those of Hitler and Chiang Kai-Shek’s. At the heart of all of this once again is the rejection of people’s adoption of cultures that are not associated with their ethnic/racial identities and thus deemed alien and foreign, which as will be discussed later on more in depth is antithetical to the idea of cultural diversity and the freedom of association. What this further implies, is that people must choose abandon or betray the cultural identity that is associated with their ethnic/racial identities and that they are incapable of having a plurality of cultural identities. The problem with this obsession as far as this paper is concerned is primarily the lack of acknowledgement of the nature of culture as mutable and not fixed.

Therefore, to claim that a so called pure culture exists is simply ignorant. With the machinery of the state, an authoritarian one at that, these two regimes also commissioned their own ideologically driven and propagandizing movies, artworks, and music with the sole aim to indoctrinate their citizens and keep them subservient. These artificially created cultural products, unlike organic societal culture, hold no intrinsic value and do not provide people with a sense of well-being nor belonging but instead create and help maintain a climate of terror that stifles creativity as one would be in fear to openly deviate from the standards established by such commissioned works.

As one arrives at the end of this section, one must conclude that the argument regarding culture put forward by alt-right ethnonationalists is ultimately incoherent and logically

inconsistent as can be demonstrated by the historical political entities that largely adhere to the ideas espoused the movement. While the primary problem with the argument and the associated political system is their lack of understanding for the nature of culture as being mutable, the assertion that such a thing as a “pure” ethnic culture cannot be put into practice without the use of coercion and violence in the form of an authoritarian state. As a result, the outcome of the implementation of practices of “cultural planning” and cultural purification will inevitably be the loss and destruction of certain elements of the culture that is

purportedly being prevented from “degeneration”. What has also been demonstrated in this section is that the devastating results of policies based upon ill-conceived notions of what culture entails are not always evident until a long period of time after and are very difficult if possible at all to reverse by the time they are fully studied. Regarding the alt-right’s argument in favour of ethnic/racial homogeneity, the diversity within a given any culture dismantles the absolute association between race/ethnicity and culture despite how they may very well to varying extents coincide. If the argument were true, there would not be demonstrable cultural variations amongst a single people of the same race/ethnicity. On the same basis then, one must also reject the notion that people are endowed with a certain cultural identity simply on the basis of their ethnic/racial identity and not consider the possibility of them adopting the cultural identity more associated with another ethnicity/race, which this section’s discussions have demonstrated to be antithetical to the diversity of cultures and the freedom of

association. As will be demonstrated later on, this idea is ironically also present in the theoretical framework of multiculturalist political theorists, which as far as this paper is concerned renders its policy implications quite problematic. That being said, regardless of race/ethnicity, when people have more liberty to express themselves and associate themselves with each other, they tend to produce “better” culture in the form of art, music and etc. After all, for the two nations involved in the historical cases, German and Chinese cultures are never praised for the period during which they were represented by “cultural planning”

authoritarian states. Indeed, the weaker states of the Weimar Republic in Germany and the Beiyang government in China that preceded the regimes studied in this section oversaw more cultural developments than their authoritarian successors. In stark contrast, the liberal

democratic successors of National Socialist Germany and Chiang Kai-Shek’s China on Taiwan came to oversee the revival of their respective cultures. Finally, if all of this fails to convince those who still believe in the capacity of an ethnically homogenous authoritarian state to protect and preserve culture, they are cordially invited to critically investigate the

case of today’s Communist China, which has more in common with Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime than its leaders would like to admit.

2.3 (State) Multiculturalism & the Multicultural Democratic State

Again using the SEP (Song, 2016) and the IEP (Rodrigues, n.d.) as sources, on can contend that “within contemporary political philosophy, the concept of multiculturalism has been defined in two different ways”. While, “[s]ometimes the term ‘multiculturalism’ is used as a descriptive concept”, it can also be defined “as a kind of policy for responding to cultural diversity”. For the purpose of this paper, the concept of multiculturalism will be more akin to the second definition with policy implications, as pointed out in the SEP (Song, 2016), multiculturalist political theorists are in accord with the view that cultural diversities “are to be recognized and accommodated”, notably by the state. An example of this, as outlined in the SEP, is the existence of “group-differentiated rights” in Western liberal democracies, the political framework within which multiculturalist political theorists operate (Kymlicka, 2007a, p.77). To elaborate, “ a group-differentiated right is a right of a minority group (or a member of such a group) to act or not act in a certain way in accordance with their religious obligations and/or cultural commitments” (Song, 2016). Furthermore, this right can directly limit “the freedom of non-members in order to protect the minority group's culture, as in the case of restrictions on the use of the English language in Québec” (Song, 2016). Once again, although according to the first definition one could also take into consideration the different minorities defined by their sexual orientations and identities such as the LGBTQIA

communities, this will not be a part of the discussions of this paper due to the limited scope and length of the research project. In addition, such cultural minorities are also discussed to a lesser extent by the multiculturalist political theorists to which this paper refers. That being said, it is evident that the reinforcement of such “group-differentiated right” requires the existence of a state that has the power to do so. As a result, it would not be inaccurate to refer to this political phenomenon as state multiculturalism since this particular way of dealing with cultural and ethnic diversity did not come into force from the bottom up in a voluntary manner within civil society. Instead, policy prescriptions related to multiculturalism have been for the lack of a better word, imposed, in a top down manner upon a given nation due to the ideological preference of the respective political party elected into power. Indeed, the adoption of multiculturalism as an official policy by Western European countries such as the UK (Pitcher, 2006) and Sweden (Wickström, 2015) combined with their rejection of the previous assimilationist attitudes towards the immigrant population has allowed the state to

take upon the task of fostering cultural diversity without providing the public with a clear and coherent definition of it. As a result, it can be said that these states have effectively been transformed into what can be referred to as the multicultural democratic state through the implementation of multiculturalist policies in addition to the framework of the liberal democratic state (Kymlicka, 2007a). These policies, have historically faced challenges to their legitimacy in part due to the lack of any referenda on the subject matter and caused backlashes inspired by nationalist sentiments while they continue to come under constant scrutiny until this day (Taylor, 2015). Although there had prior to the introduction of such policies been legal provisions in many Western democracies that involved cultural and ethnic minorities such as the French Canadians (Taylor, 1992, p. 52-53), what largely distinguishes the latter from the former is that they were created as a part of a nation forming process while state multiculturalism is more of a reaction to foreign immigration. To be more specific, the idea of the multicultural democratic state denotes a country in which distinct cultural identity groups and their members possess “group-differentiated rights” such as Affirmative Action as the result of an official state policy of recognition and accommodation. Indeed, if one looks at the countries in which the works of several multiculturalist political theorists are set, they all largely adhere to this definition of the multicultural democratic state such as Taylor,

Kymlicka (Canada), Miller (2008) and Modood (2010) (the UK), Laegaard (2011) (Denmark), Kukathas (2003) (Australia) and Ferrarese (2009) (France) even though such theorists provide different arguments concerning multiculturalism. To take a broader view, they can also be categorized as liberal democracies, a reality which as will be demonstrated later on is at least acknowledged as the basis upon which “group-differentiated rights” can be argued by Taylor and Kymlicka whilst Kukathas focuses more on the more classical liberal aspect of the political system as will be discussed in more detail later on. The reason as to why this is of importance within the context of this paper, as will be demonstrated in the later section on anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, is due to the latter’s skepticism and even utter rejection of the liberal democratic state and indeed all forms of states with a centralized authority. That being said, the existence of group-differentiated rights on its own cannot define multicultural democratic states. Indeed, there are also examples of such rights being institutionalized by states that are neither liberal nor democratic such as Communist China where religious and cultural minorities are given preferential treatments over members of the Han Chinese majority population when applying for higher educational institutions (Sautman, 1997). While such policies took direct inspiration from the former Soviet Union (Sautman, 1997, p.1), they also resemble the Affirmative Action programmes implemented in the

United States, which is de facto a liberal democracy although the policy also came into force without a plebiscite. On the other hand, it is equally possible for a state to be de facto and de jure a democracy albeit not a liberal one in the Western sense while also having reserved places for cultural minorities when it comes to running for public office. An example of this is how Singapore prevents two people of the same cultural background amongst the Chinese, Indian, Malay (Muslim), and other communities from consecutively taking on the presidency of the republic (Channel NewsAsia, 2016). As a multiethnic and multicultural post-colonial nation, this can be regarded as a measure to ensure national unity, an aim which has also lead to the rejection of Western liberalism. This can be attested to by the government’s active censorship of publications that can be seen as provoking racial tensions or including pornographic content, outlawing chewing gums, and the reinforcement of judicial corporal punishment in the form of canning as a legacy of British colonial rule (Zhong, 2009). The efforts of the government of the majority Chinese city state to avoid any conflict with its Muslim Malay community, which is relatively more socially conservative, can be attributed to its historically uneasy relationship with its much larger majority Malay neighbor country Malaysia (Han, 2014). While this can be categorized as a form of (state) multiculturalism since the “the freedom of non-members” is effectively curtailed “in order to protect the minority group's culture” (Song, 2016), this still does not make Singapore a multicultural democratic state, which begs one to question as to what exactly does the liberal aspect of the political system entails. For Kymlicka (2007b, p.2), the liberal framework supposedly allows for the plurality of ways in which people with different cultural conceptions of “the good life”

to pursue them accordingly. Implicit in this, as will also be discussed more in depth later on, is an egalitarian view of different cultures, at least in terms of dignity and deserving of equal respect. What this does not mean however, is a completely neutral or “blind” liberal approach to cultural minorities, which is rejected by both Kymlicka (2007b, p. 14) and Taylor (1992) but could be argued to be supported by Kukathas (2008). Indeed, the liberalism embedded within the multicultural democratic state in contrast to its illiberal counterpart as exemplified by the aforementioned city state of Singapore manifests itself in the former’s commitment to plurality and opposition to cultural and identitarian homogeneity. The Bilingual Policy in Singapore, which stipulated that students are required to learn English, a legacy of British colonisation, as their first language due to concerns regarding the economic competitiveness of its workforce and national unity, while providing courses for the native languages of each respective culture groups as second languages (Sim, 2016). In addition, the state also

discouraged members of the Chinese cultural community from speaking their dialects in

favour of Standard Mandarin, which can be unintelligible to those with dialect speaking parents (Lim, 2013). One the other hand, although it is commonly misconceived that the United States’ official language is English due to its dominant role in politics by convention and civil society, the liberal democracy that institutes (state) multiculturalism has no de jure official language (USA.gov, 2017). While individual states can have official languages, they also accommodate their respective cultural minorities as can be seen the inclusion of

candidate information in their languages on election ballots, which allows them to fully participate in the process without having to learn the language of the majority culture (New York State Attorney General, n.d.). This supposed commitment to plurality and not

homogeneity could thus be argued to be the true defining characteristic of multicultural democratic states. That being said, despite allowing for different cultural groups to pursue

“the good life” in their own ways within the liberal democratic framework, modern multicultural democratic states can still face challenges when it comes to dealing with cultural diversity. While this can be a result of the political processes that took place prior to their implementation of (state) multiculturalism, it can also be due to the latter’s narrowly conceived notion of what culture entails of which one is critical. In order to inquire into such problems then, one will in the next section present and discuss the ideas of multiculturalist political theorists, which have helped to provide the theoretical justifications for the multicultural democratic state.

3. Multiculturalist Political Theorists and Arguments

3.1 Kymlicka

When it comes to the challenges faced by multicultural democratic states due to their sometimes illiberal pasts, the aforementioned distinction between national minorities and immigrant minorities has indeed been noted in Kymlicka’s (2007b) work in that the former has the possibility to engage in nation building within the framework of a liberal democratic state whereas the latter does not. As he contends, “[a]ll else being equal, national minorities should have the same tools of nation building available to them as the majority nation” within such a political framework (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 10). The notion then that the immigrant minorities suffer from disadvantages within the nation building, which is as previously noted shared by other multiculturalist political theorists like Taylor (1992, p. 55-56) and Kymlicka, further contributes to justifying state multiculturalism. To elaborate, it could be argued that since there are not any discrepancies in terms of nation building rights between the national

majorities and minorities, the latter in comparison to the immigrant minorities could hardly be regarded as minorities at all but instead parts of the established majority culture. For example, while French Canadians, at least Quebecers, can hold independence referenda, immigrants would not be able to argue for the separation of the territory in which they live from other parts of Canada. This perceived tension between majority and minority cultures lies at the heart of the arguments of political theorists in favour of state multiculturalism and is coupled with the critique of the state as being non neutral, especially in a cultural sense, in order to justify the policies of “group-differentiated rights”, “recognition” and

“accommodation”. At this point, one can already identify three problems with this theoretical framework. Firstly, the majority minority paradigm is not, as so far demonstrated, always rigid and unchangeable. In fact, as the comparison between national minorities and immigrant minorities highlights, the definition of minority status is indeed susceptible to demographic changes and how demographic statistics are produced. For example, while the United States Census Bureau (2015) treats “White” people as a monolith, the statistics of the

“Asian” race contains subdivisions such as “Chinese”, “Filipino”, “Korean” and etc (.

Furthermore, when one takes into consideration the previously established characteristics of culture, one has to question the implicit association between culture and ethnic/immigration background, which has inadequate consideration for the diversity within these groups by regarding them as homogenous collectives. Having heavily criticized the ethnonationalist collectivist views towards people and cultures, one must take issue with this overly simplistic paradigm, which also does not take into consideration the disadvantages that the non-

immigration population might endure with the taken for granted notion that the state and its institutions are its favour. This is despite the justification that “ethnocultural minorities have not yet succumbed to liberal individualism, and so have maintained a coherent collective way of life” in Kymlicka’s (2007b, p. 3) work, which could be argued to some extent be valid.

Even then, when one takes into consideration the mutability nature of culture, how can one say that overtime the immigrant minorities will not adopt a more individualist cultural

framework in a voluntary manner as some of them might very well have migrated to Western liberal democracies on ideological grounds. In such an event, would they lose the “group- differentiated rights”, “recognition” and “accommodation” granted to them within the state- multiculturalist framework? Secondly, one must question as to how the state can determine people’s cultural and ethnic/racial identities in order to grant them special rights on these basis and how can exploitations of such systems be prevented. Let us consider the

Affirmative Action programme for example, how would the United States’ government be

able to prevent newly arrived African immigrants from taking advantage of it as African Americans at the cost of those whose ancestors were subjected to slavery and Jim Crow laws States. How would the state alleviate the conflict that could potentially arise between the immigrant African Americans and those whose ancestors were brought to the United States against their free will if the latter were to view the former undeserving of the special rights that were intended to be accorded to them? In addition, at one point do people stop being immigrants? If they are to be regarded as permanent immigrants in any given society, would this not be counterintuitive to (state) multiculturalism’s noble aim of preventing the

marginalization of cultural and ethnic/racial minorities? Thirdly, as presented in the introduction of this section and as Kymlicka (2007b, p. 1) observed how “Western

democracies had not resolved or overcome the tensions raised by ethnocultural diversity”, state multiculturalism does not itself proactively generate cultural diversity, which it does not claim to do as far as the multiculturalist political theorists considered within the scope of this paper are concerned, but instead reacts to the problems that arise with cultural diversity in societies. At the heart of this problem, is the source of this diversity that is immigration, in most cases from non-Western countries justified on economic or humanitarian grounds by the governments who encourage and bring about such immigration instead of an organic process born out of civil society. Similar to one of the issues raised in the previous problem, the mutability nature of culture also would lead one to question as to how this “ethnocultural diversity” would be sustainable in the long run in any given society in the event of

immigrants deciding to voluntarily adopt the cultures of the host nation and thus rendering the policy of (state) multiculturalism obsolete. Furthermore, as noted by political theorists in favour of (state) multiculturalism, there has indeed been demonstrable animosity and

backlashes against the immigration policies that have led to the introduction of (state) multiculturalism. From the so called “Rivers of Blood” speech made by British politician Enoch Powell in its earlier days to the contemporary rise in right-wing nationalism across countries in which (state) multiculturalism has been implemented, one must also question as to how the political model could continue to be in force while respecting the principles of Western democracy (Taylor, 2015). Apart from such opposition against (state)

multiculturalism rooted in nationalist sentiments, arguments can also be made regarding how anti-egalitarian it is to grant people rights simply based upon their cultural and ethnic/racial identities, which as will be demonstrated later on is considered by Taylor (1992, p. 43).

Indeed, there has been increasing concerns regarding the compatibility between (state) multiculturalism as a result of immigration and some of the fundamental principles of