To refer to this article use this url: http://www.quotidian.nl/vol02/nr01/a01
Multiculturalism, multiculti and multiculturalization
Quite often Holland is called a ‘multicultural society’. This designation describes an actual situation, i.e. one in which the territory is inhabited not just by people with a Dutch cultural background, but also by others. Multiculturalism is an ideology pertaining to this society. It deems cultural diversity desirable and positive. The various ethnic groups are encouraged to maintain their ‘own’ culture and propagate it. According to this ideology’s adherents, to do so contributes not merely to one’s own well-being, but also to a colourful society as a whole (see Young 1999, 100; Van Leeuwen 2003, 245-267). Multiculturalism regards culture as plural. That means it assumes there are different more or less clear-cut and homogeneous cultures. Meanwhile, in scientific debate this perspective has been severely criticized (see for instance Fox and King 2002, 1; Sewell 1999, 52-53). Nowadays culture is sometimes seen as a repertoire to draw from and to use in substantializing identities, ethnic ones for instance (Swidler 1984, 273), a perspective popular in cultural studies, but whose phrasing sometimes tends toward an image suggesting too much freedom of choice and flexibility (Kuper 1999, 241-242). Due to multiculturalism’s emphasis on the symbolic expressions of cultural individuality, it is akin to this ‘culture as repertoire’ approach. But in multiculturalism there is a conspicuous lack of freedom of choice, because it constantly draws on the same recognizable canon.
It is hard to gain insight into the place of multiculturalism in Dutch society. Years ago, columnists and publicists in leading newspapers declared multiculturalism dead, particularly in the wake of Scheffer’s article on ‘the multicultural drama’ (2000). This ‘cuddly ideology’ was claimed to be of no help to aliens (see also Wikan 2002 for a comparable thesis in Norway). According to these opinion leaders it would be far better to communicate prevailing norms and values from a solid Dutch identity. When labelling the current climate, various authors now speak of anti-multiculturalism. This trend argues for the idea that there are shared values that should unite society, but resist multiculturalism’s cultural relativism and essentialism (Eller 1997, 250-251). In the Dutch debate, even the descriptive term ‘multicultural society’ has become discredited. Though the terms in the discourse have changed, daily practice shows that in all sorts of places multiculturalism is propagated and consumed. Hence to declare it dead was perhaps premature.
Multiculturalism cannot be seen as separate from consumption. It is linked to numerous events, projects, shops and objects. Somewhat ironically, this varied group of products is called ‘multiculti’. Thus for instance the present article reviews the multiculti festivals Roots, Dunya and Mundial. These multiculti products are closely related to multiculturalism, but multiculti and multiculturalism cannot be reduced to one another. The latter is an ideology, whereas multiculti is used for a group of products.
In addition to those two terms, the present article also discusses the multiculturalization of festivals. By this is meant that, for example, ethnic festivals come to connect with the symbols, representations and ideals of multiculturalism, and may themselves finally become a new symbol of it. Multiculturalization may imply both the influence of multiculti as a lifestyle and multiculturalism as an ideology.[2] Subsequently the principles of the market play a substantial part in the unequivocal form in which ethnicity is framed at these festivals. As the Comaroffs formulate it: ‘Those who seek to brand their otherness, to profit from what makes them different, find themselves having to do so in the universally recognizable terms in which difference is represented, merchandised, rendered negotiable by means of the abstract instruments of the market: money, the commodity, commensuration, the calculus of supply and demand, price, branding. And advertising.’ (Camaroff and Camaroff 2009, 24)
It is precisely the existence of a market for this ethnic singularity that offers the possibility of maintaining that singularity. Though the form and perhaps also the content are adapted to the consumers’ wishes, the identity itself, or the feeling of ethnic solidarity, remain intact exactly due to this possibility to display or perform ethnicity to others. Hence the commoditization is not just a process of expropriation by market parties, but frequently it is also a process by which people themselves make money with their ethnic singularity and experience it.