HAS MULTICULTURALISM ANY VALUE?
Multiculturalism is a philosophical
movement that holds that every culture, by virtue of its being
a culture,
has an intrinsic value which is worth respecting. Multiculturalism advocates
the
recognition and respect of all cultures and so, as Fleishacker
says, it is «the affirmative attitude towards all cultures» (XI).
Moreover, multiculturalism can be viewed both in positive and negative ways. It
is positive if it brings the riches of cultural diversity to the larger
political community, thereby leading to respect for differences, appreciation
of diversity and cooperation as well as interaction among cultures. It can be
negative if it prevents people from developing any attachment to the larger
political community and hence leading to isolationism, ethnic cultism and
tribalism. Angola is made up of a diverse range of cultures and identities and
both loyalty to the larger political community, as advocated by Pepetela' s
Mayombe, pari passu with a multiculturalism which does not
wash away ethnic particularism but celebrates differences, will be another way
of bringing about what Angola should become to prevent further conflict, to
unite the citizens and to transcend people' s differences.
The culture of resistance that Mayombe creates and
which is informed by the liberation struggle calls for a nationalistic approach
for nation building so that a person will not act as a Kimbundu or Umbundu but
as an Angolan. As Fearless asks «Am I Kikongo? Are you Kimbundu?»
(8). João picks it up, «Not us. We belong to the minority who have
already forgotten our roots and the village we came from» (8) and
therefore, the only way in which individuals can realize themselves to the full
is by identifying with the nation (the larger political community).
João's remark «What would I be without the Movement? An
orphan» (100) alludes to the nation. Even though several kingdoms
(nations) existed in the contemporary Angola before the arrival of the
Portuguese, people's migration and their exposure to the common experience of
oppression and discrimination, as well as the cultural fusion that was
highlighted by the increased use of the
Portuguese language at the expense of indigenous languages, led
to the rise of a national culture, a national loyalty and so to the birth of
Angola's nation-state (one nation).
The culture of resistance implies transferring loyalties and
commitments from the ethno-cultural groups to the new nation-state. The ideal
is, as Tamir puts it, that «national ends have priority over individual
ends and personal freedom is attainable only through identification with, and
subordination to the `nation's will'» (17). In Etounga-Manguelle' s terms,
the nation is the mother and institutions are the children (75). Pepetela' s
character New World attests to that when he says that «an individual is
nothing, only the masses can make History» (52). National history is being
unfolded through the revolution and that is why the Ops says that «people
understand [Fearless] only when he expresses himself in action [...] they [even
forget] that he is Kikongo» (166). This suggests that an active approach
to nation-building is needed for Angola to unite its citizens and to attain the
real independence which will come to its term only when, as João
remarks, talking to the timber workers, «[...] the trees you chop down may
serve the people and not foreigners [...] the petrol in Cabinda may serve to
enrich the people and not the Americans» (20). However, after
independence, João's remarks became merely rhetorical because leadership
of the liberation movements degenerated into elitism.
The rise of Portuguese at the expense of the indigenous
languages is a historical fact that supported the growth of that cultural
homogeneity which Mayombe attempts to create. A survey carried out in
1996 showed that Portuguese was the second most widely spoken language in the
country and was well ahead of Kimbundu and Kikongo. The survey testified that
no less than forty-two per cent of children under nine years of age,
thirty-four per cent of those between ten
and nineteen, eighteen per cent of those aged from twenty to
twenty-nine, including myself, and ten per cent of those over forty spoke
Portuguese as their first language (Hodges 26). Besides urbanization, which
served as one of the driving forces that led to that, and for the sake of
national unity, the MPLA's government never allowed the use of indigenous
languages in the public sector. So, Chabal says, «Angola has often been
seen to be more `Portuguese' than [any other colony]» (4). According to
Neto, «culture results from the material situation and from the state of
social development» (493). Since, the rise of the Portuguese language is a
historical fact, Neto argues that this «should be presented as the
cultural emancipation of the Angolan people» (493). However, by making
Portuguese the national language, this will result, as it has already, in its
outstripping all the indigenous languages, and this poses a threat to Angola's
cultural and multilingual diversity.
As has been demonstrated, the culture of resistance, which
Mayombe attempts to create, is seriously flawed. It fosters national
unity, national identity, national loyalty, national culture and national
integration by fusing the diverse ethnic elements into a new political whole
called `the nation.' But, in its failure to take into account of ethnic and
linguistic identities, Mayombe ends up promoting cultural and
linguistic homogeneities and therefore eradicating ethnic consciousness or
identity. Nussbaum says, «[we] need not think of them [ethnic and
linguistic identities] as superficial, and we may think of our identity as
constituted partly by them» (9) and so instead of `real' nation-building,
Mayombe promotes `nation-destroying.' Guerrillas are brought together
purposely in order to act and think as if they belonged to one large
ethnocultural community. For instance, when the Kikongos start joining the
MPLA's leadership, which was dominated by Mbundu, mestiços,
Creoles and white, Miracle says bluntly that these «will not
let themselves be bossed by the Kikongos» (19). In other
words, the ethos of fellow feeling and mutual recognition among the guerrillas
is clearly instrumental - to promote the liberation struggle - and thus,
multiculturalism, which does not wash away ethnic particularism but celebrates
differences, should also be fostered.
Multiculturalism creates room for cultural diversity, respect
for the distinctness of cultures and protection of minority groups. Moreover,
multiculturalism is not simply built on many cultures but by the fact of
holding that no culture is perfect and all cultures should be open and
interactive in their relations with each other because the `significant others'
help to define oneself. In Taylor's words, «my discovering my own identity
does not mean that I work it out in isolation, but that I negotiate it through
dialogue, partly overt, partly internal, with others» (34). In addition,
«part of the uniqueness of individuals results from the ways in which they
integrate, reflect upon, and modify their own cultural heritage and that of
other people with whom they come into contact» (Gutmann 7). Thus, instead
of having the Luanda Creole elites despising people from central and southern
Angola and the latter considering the former as `non-African', Angolan
plurality should contribute to human flourishing and discovering a common
purpose within a more diverse society.
Ethnicity, which Mayombe attempts to wash away for
the sake of national unity, is one of the outstanding features of a nation. As
Gyekye reminds us, the word ethnicity comes from the Greek word ethnos
that means «a number of people living together, body of men, class of men,
nation, caste and tribe» (96). This suggests that from its etymology,
ethnicity essentially implies the fact of people living together and it does
not directly imply a sense of kinship and common
descent. Anthony Smith says that the Greek word
genos, which has its etymological affiliation in the Greek root
gene, was the term reserved for kinship or biological ties (qtd. in
Gyekye 97). Moreover, considering the movements of people from one place to
another in the wake of wars, inter-ethnic and inter-racial marriages,
amalgamation of groups into other distinct units, ethnic identity becomes a
matter of personal belief or choice. Since one's ancestry can often not be
established with any certainty, instead of a community of people bound by
kinship or intrinsically ancestral descent, today what we have are communities
of people living together and sharing values, aspirations, ideals and
sentiments. Thus, as Gyekye points out, «what is often called `ethnic'
identification is almost invariably cultural identification» (99) and
Angolans should not see themselves as sharing just one ethnic identity. They
are heirs to a multicultural identity that allows them to transcend
parochialism.
As has been shown, ethnic communities are far too large to
possess any kinship basis. Their sense of common descent, as Anthony Smith
argues, «[...] is only a myth, albeit a powerful one» (qtd. in Gyekye
97). The example of Pepetela' s character Muatianvua can be a helpful one here.
He is born in Lunda (known as the territory of Tchokue, Angola's fourth largest
ethnic group) from an Umbundu father and a Kimbundu mother. He grew up in
Benguela (the territory of Umbundu) with white children and children whose
fathers were Umbundu, Tchokue, Kimbundu, Kuanhama and Fiote. As a sailor,
Muatianvua went as far as Gabon, Ghana, Senegal, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia.
When asked to which tribe he belongs, he answers, «I am from all tribes,
not only Angola [...] Do I not speak Swahili [...] Hausa [...]
Portuguese?» (87) Muatianvua extrapolates a general truth which Angolans
face about their specific ethnic belonging and so shows that we are all
individuals of multiethnic extraction. The significance of this is that this
should help us to learn
and value our own culture, respect other cultures as well as
value cultural diversity and see it as a positive thing.
As said earlier, multiculturalism is negative if it prevents
people from developing any attachment to the larger political community. The
kind of nationalism - the manipulative rhetoric used to preserve a larger
nation - which Savimbi, Roberto and the Luanda Creole community promoted,
prevented people from developing any national attachment and therefore it led
to ethnic cultism, tribalism, racism and superiority complex. While Savimbi and
Roberto called the Luanda Creole society `non-African,' the latter, as they
were at the heart of the colonial order, saw themselves as the true elites of
the country and so developed a superiority complex over the people of the
interior. Despite cultural and linguistic divisions, people should identify
themselves not only as men and citizens but also as Angolans. We were all
exposed to the same political, economic and social forces and this should help
us to recognize each other' s horizons, to experience one another, not only as
Angolans but also, say, as Mbundu, Bakongo or Ovimbundu. Moreover, we all
belong to the community of humankind and therefore, as Wiredu says, «what
unifies us is more fundamental than what differentiates us» (32).
|
|
