Early this year, I met with a senator from the French government. During a Q&A, someone asked him about the increasing number of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa. The senator responded, “When you walk down the streets of France, it is not in France. It’s the Middle East.” In other words, the senator worries immigrant’s culture appears to increasingly replace and remove France’s culture. Roughly defined, “culture” is the material, intellectual, and artistic products of a national identity, and that national identity’s values, vision, and etiquette [1].
In addition to the senator’s experience, in 2002, a poll surveyed some Middle Eastern and North African countries about how they view Western culture. Most countries had a somewhat or very negative view of Western culture [2]. Given the time of the poll, it’s likely Westerners did not esteem these countries' cultures any better. Yet, relations with these countries and their cultures seem to have drastically improved. A 2012 study showed that 73% of the French did not believe their culture was superior [3]. So, the majority of France wants to accommodate different cultures.
Navigating the relationship between one’s culture and another foreign one reveals an interesting tension between the importance of a nation’s native culture and the necessity of accepting foreign cultures within the nation. This tension points us to a debate between multiculturalism and pluralism. Pluralism says that there should be one dominant host culture with co-existing subcultures. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, argues that all cultures should coexist and none should dominate. I believe that pluralism better protects French culture and better preserves cultural diversity globally.
In the framework of pluralism, France becomes the host country whose culture becomes the dominant one. A dominant culture is not a superior culture. Rather, once we find ourselves situated in a location in which there is a dominant culture, certain cultural obligations fall upon us. For example, we should learn and embrace the nation’s language (as much as one can), history, food, and artistic production. Thus, for those who find themselves in France, they should learn and embrace these aspects of French culture.
Why should we take this kind of obligation seriously? Consider an extreme example: imperial France. France sends their military to a North African country. They take the government by force, change the official language of the country to French, and force all citizens to adopt French culture. This act of white supremacy not only displaced the host nation’s culture, but also deemed their culture inferior. While the example is extreme, a lesson to elicit from this commonplace event in history is that, in a pluralistic model, the host country’s culture matters.
The trouble with pluralism is whether it can ensure the coexistence of other cultures. Multiculturalism responds to this worry much easier. No culture is superior to another, nor should any culture dominate another. I think pluralism, however, not only captures that benefit of multiculturalism by preserving other cultures in its own culture, but it also better preserves cultural diversity globally than multiculturalism.
Pluralism does not (or should not) posit that their host country is superior to a subculture. But, there needs to be a dominant host culture to ensure cultural diversity. So, in France, French culture should not be seen as superior to immigrant culture. France should learn about the diverse Middle Eastern and African cultures, or at a minimum, let them live their culture. However, these subcultures should recognize the prevalence of their host culture. In other words, they should learn French, its history, and enjoy its beautiful art.
This recognition of French culture as the host culture should, in turn, preserve other cultures globally better than multiculturalism. Since multiculturalism does not prioritize any culture, there is no reason to sustain one culture over another. So, the most psychologically, sociologically, or politically appealing cultures will slowly win out over other cultures potentially leading into the creation of one massive hybrid culture. Therefore, we would lose the diverse set of cultures we enjoy today. Pluralism, however, puts a pragmatic restriction on homogenizing all cultures. Since each nation acts as host to a culture, pluralism obligates those who situate themselves in that culture to embrace it as much as possible. And this embracement of another culture need not be a replacement. Thus, every culture respective to its native nation is preserved on a global scale.
Whether we should share the same level of worry about French culture that the senator has, I’m not sure. However, from his worry we learn the importance of a pluralistic approach to culture. Pluralism promises to maintain cultures worldwide while allowing for respect for other cultures. So, the next time you visit France, or any other country, try to embrace that nation’s culture: try to learn some of the language, history, and their artistic treasures.
