Liberalism, Multiculturalism & Feminism

[aelf]

Say again?

I missed out an "all" there. Let me state that again.

"That implies a teleological school of thought. Not all schools of thought are teleological."

As I tried to illustrate in my reply to Kaiserguard about compulsion, I believe to have good reason to expect that some kind of general philosophy of liberty or freedom or absence of compulsion is bound to be intellectually corrupted and dishonest. weather it extends 150 years or a thousand years of thought.

So you think that the last 150 years of development consists of nothing but corruption and intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Tahuti]

Fascism was almost as much against bourgeois liberalism as against communism.

Fascism was never about returning to past traditions. If that was so then fascists would endeavour to decentralise the state rather than aggressively centralising power.

Fascism wasn't against the bourgeoisie and despite its vast differences with liberalism attracted demographics otherwise supportive of liberalism. This is perhaps best illustrated how the 'liberal' pillar was the most potent source of support for the National Socialist Party and the later Nazi occupation in the Netherlands.

Fascism was partially about preserving folklore, though it indeed had no problems with suppressing them whenever that was considered favourable.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Well I would say that regardless of whether you wish to call yourself "feminist", "multiculturalist" or "liberal", you seem to share a lot of common values with many of them. Why not join forces and help make the world a good place for all? Cooperate, participate and learn from each other.

Those values are what anyone with decent moral values would support. Being a liberal, a feminist or a 'multiculturalist' means much more that that, doesn't it?!

 

[Gary Childress]

Those values are what anyone with decent moral values would support. Being a liberal, a feminist or a 'multiculturalist' means much more that that, doesn't it?!

Well, then. What do you think they mean, or should mean or what do/should they focus on accomplishing or else prevent? What does a "true" feminist, liberal or multiculturalist believe?

 

[BvBPL]

What would be some examples of where these ideologies seem to oppose one another, I mean without proposing ridiculous definitions of what these ideologies stand for or seek, such as multiculturalism should allow for the oppression of minorities within minority groups? I clearly don't think that should fly in anyone's book.

Third-wave feminism is among the most on-point examples. It developed because contemporary second-wave feminism was insufficiently open to alternative voices.

The black nationalism movement is liberal and decidedly non-multicultural.

Then there's the issue of polygamy. It's practiced in many cultures and multiculturalism would honor those traditions, but it is abhorrent to many feminists.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Well, then. What do you think they mean, or should mean or what do/should they focus on accomplishing or else prevent? What does a "true" feminist, liberal or multiculturalist believe?

I believe other people around here would better describe these terms. I just know that I disagree with many feminists and some-plenty of liberal thoughts. I'm not sure what a multiculturalist believe or what policies they support. The abolishment of national boarders? Not sure I'd support that.

 

[Gary Childress]

Third-wave feminism is among the most on-point examples. It developed because contemporary second-wave feminism was insufficiently open to alternative voices.

Being open to alternative voices sounds good. But isn't there a limit to what should or shouldn't be entertained?

The black nationalism movement is liberal and decidedly non-multicultural.

Then there's the issue of polygamy. It's practiced in many cultures and multiculturalism would honor those traditions, but it is abhorrent to many feminists.

As I've said elsewhere I'm sure there are many combinations of ideas out there. I'm sure Feminism could potentially be combined with nationalism for example. Would that make Feminism essentially "nationalistic" at its core? At it's core I would think that feminism is about the protection of rights and equality for women. At it's core I would think multiculturalism is about something similar for different cultures.

Let's take the example of the "black nationalist" movement as you present it. I know nothing about the movement but you say they are "liberal" and not "multicultural". What exactly are the tenets of the "black nationalist" movement as you understand them? Are these tenets liberal and are they not multicultural would probably be my reply after that (just to prepare you in advance).

I believe other people around here would better describe these terms. I just know that I disagree with many feminists and some-plenty of liberal thoughts. I'm not sure what a multiculturalist believe or what policies they support. The abolishment of national boarders? Not sure I'd support that.

Suppose many "Multiculturalists" did believe in the abolishment of national borders. Is that something essential in order to be a multiculturalist or is that something incidental to it. So for example, suppose abolishing national borders turned out to destroy all the unique cultures of the world, might multiculturalists then change their mind about abolishing national borders? wouldn't that therefore make the abolition of national borders incidental to the beliefs of multiculturalists?

It seems to me that there is something essential that "multiculturalists" seek to achieve and it is not necessarily the preservation of any and all types of cultural values. If it were then there would be absolute chaos because I could claim that colonizing the rest of the world is a "cultural trait" of Western culture. That would be self defeating to multiculturalists. Therefore in order to have consistent beliefs they must narrow them a bit. My contention is that if you narrow the beliefs of all three ideologies in the subject line of this thread down to some core principles and values you could potentially come down to shared common values which do not conflict with one another.

My belief is that some people try to erect artificial barriers between various movements and ideals to divide them among each other (divide and conquer) and set them in opposition to each other. I don't know why some people do this but I'm sure it has to do with some fear of what they believe these ideologies represent. But if you look at the core values of these ideologies I don't think there is anything to really fear. The thing to fear is when good ideologies become associated with bad ideas. The bad ideas can be discarded and you can still keep to the good core of these ideologies. That is my hypothesis and so far I haven't seen a significant challenge offered to this hypothesis.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

With those narrow definitions they become too inclusive, imo. The most right wing party in Sweden - the Moderates - is defined as liberal conservatives and their core values could perhaps be nailed down to - personal freedom, justice and free market. In that sense I could claim the core value of right wing ideology to be - "All people, regardless of who they are, should be able to do what they want and keep what they earn without fear of being robbed". Why would anyone disagree with those values? They even fit well in with feminism and multiculturalism. But does that make you a right winger?

 

[Gary Childress]

With those narrow definitions they become too inclusive, imo. The most right wing party in Sweden - the Moderates - is defined as liberal conservatives and their core values could perhaps be nailed down to - personal freedom, justice and free market. In that sense I could claim the core value of right wing ideology to be - "All people, regardless of who they are, should be able to do what they want and keep what they earn without fear of being robbed". Why would anyone disagree with those values? They even fit well in with feminism and multiculturalism. But does that make you a right winger?

What's wrong with inclusivity? If you don't have wide appeal then that could sometimes be a sign of something being wrong with your ideas. I don't know.

"Liberal conservative' sort of sounds like an oxymoron. And how can they be "moderates" and "right wingers" at the same time. This group you are referring to already sounds politically confusing to me. Is their agenda only that no one should be robbed of what they earn? If that is the case I would agree with various caveats. But what do they mean by "robbed"? What do they mean by "earn". For example a communist might say that the capitalist robs the worker of a percentage of his wages in order to create profit. So are these "right wingers" in Sweden communists? Or are they simply people who think everyone should have a handgun in their nightstand drawer to chase off burglars?

Personal freedom and justice sound like worthy goals. However, I might disagree with free markets if that means leaving society at the mercy of unregulated, unwieldy market trends. Presumably "free markets" would not be an essential belief of theirs I would think. They believe that humans benefit most from a "free market". However, I assume they would change their mind if it were determined that "free markets" didn't fulfill this goal. And yes, there are simply such things sometimes as groups that pretend to believe in lofty ideals but are really more galvanized around selfishness, hatred, distrust, arrogance or apathy toward other peoples.

 

[Tahuti]

"Liberal conservative' sort of sounds like an oxymoron.

It is a European term, 'Liberal' being more closer to 'Libertarian'. Even though 'Libertarianism' constitutes an ideology, and conservative is essentially the absence of it, there are plenty of points where libertarianism and conservatism agree. Overall, you are right that it is an oxymoron in the most essential definition, though it should be more seen as political compromise to deal with political realities libertarians and conservatives both face than as an actual ideology that was conceptualised as libertarianism/liberalism is.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I missed out an "all" there. Let me state that again.

"That implies a teleological school of thought. Not all schools of thought are teleological."

Yeah well true is true. I meant normative school of thoughts.

So you think that the last 150 years of development consists of nothing but corruption and intellectual dishonesty?

Aelf, I must say that I have the impression that your eagerness to oppose me distracts you from what I am saying.
If it was "nothing but corruption and intellectual dishonesty", then I wouldn't say that it "has something to offer". Now would I?

 

[BvBPL]

Let's take the example of the "black nationalist" movement as you present it. I know nothing about the movement but you say they are "liberal" and not "multicultural". What exactly are the tenets of the "black nationalist" movement as you understand them? Are these tenets liberal and are they not multicultural would probably be my reply after that (just to prepare you in advance).

I think you'd find that black nationalism has a liberal goal, rights for blacks, to be achieved by liberal means, collective grassroots action, but is concerned strictly with the interests of blacks and thus decidedly not multicultural and even anti-multicultural.

 

[Gary Childress]

I think you'd find that black nationalism has a liberal goal, rights for blacks, to be achieved by liberal means, collective grassroots action, but is concerned strictly with the interests of blacks and thus decidedly not multicultural and even anti-multicultural.

So if they are not multicultural but not "anti-multicultural" then how do the show conflict between multiculturalism and liberalism?

 

[BvBPL]

I might have had a misplaced modifier there.

I meant to say that black nationalism is decidedly not multicultural and black nationalism is even anti-multicultural. I did not intend to say it was neither of those.

 

[Traitorfish]

"Liberal conservative' sort of sounds like an oxymoron.

"Liberal conservative" describes somebody who supports liberal policies, but on conservative grounds. They'd typically be contrasted to conservatives who support authoritarian and/or paternalistic policies. (Although, it's worth noting, that's not a comprehensive duality, and a lot of conservatives will not fit either description exactly; the Thatcher government in the UK, for example, advocate liberal economic policies, but adopted authoritarian and nationalist policies in many other areas.)

 

[Gary Childress]

I might have had a misplaced modifier there.

I meant to say that black nationalism is decidedly not multicultural and black nationalism is even anti-multicultural. I did not intend to say it was neither of those.

It was my fault for not reading what you wrote closely enough. I apologize.

I guess I'm a little unclear in what black nationalism would entail. According to Wiki it appears they are somehow opposed to multiculturalism, though it doesn't explain why or in what senses. I mean if a separate black nation were created, would they be tolerant of other cultures or would they just do what whites are allegedly guilty of and oppress minorities within their jurisdiction? I would think it would be in their interest to be tolerant toward subgroups within their jurisdiction. If not then I would think it would be a little hard to even call them "liberal".

So my two questions are, are they REALLY opposed to multiculturalism in principle and/or to what extent do they embrace liberal ideals such as liberty, equality, toleration etc.?

"Liberal conservative" describes somebody who supports liberal policies, but on conservative grounds. They'd typically be contrasted to conservatives who support authoritarian and/or paternalistic policies. (Although, it's worth noting, that's not a comprehensive duality, and a lot of conservatives will not fit either description exactly; the Thatcher government in the UK, for example, advocate liberal economic policies, but adopted authoritarian and nationalist policies in many other areas.)

Thank you for the clarification Traitorfish. It didn't make much sense to me at the time but I guess it makes a little more sense to me now.

 

[BvBPL]

Garvey suggested that blacks should have the exclusive authority to govern Africa and was a proponent of the back to Africa movement. Decidedly non-multicultural and even segregationist, but still interested in liberty and equality. That contrasts strongly w/ his contemporary, Du Bois, who advocated for integration.

 

[Formaldehyde]

My contention is that these three tendencies share many similar moral concerns and should not really be in opposition to one another. I think all three tendencies are about treating others with respect and dignity and ensuring that society is fair to everyone. Yes, they can be abused but abuse of these ideals is immoral and not the intrinsic purpose of these ideals. In short, it seems to me that abusing an ideal is not the same as upholding an ideal. For example using liberalism to establish moral "superiority" over others is not the purpose of liberal values. Pointing out the moral errors of another should not be done to elevate oneself over others, rather it should be to help the perpetrator of these wrongs become a better person and in practice make the world a better place.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Gary Childress]

Garvey suggested that blacks should have the exclusive authority to govern Africa and was a proponent of the back to Africa movement. Decidedly non-multicultural and even segregationist, but still interested in liberty and equality. That contrasts strongly w/ his contemporary, Du Bois, who advocated for integration.

I don't think multiculturalism need necessarily be about segregation versus integration, only tolerance for other cultures within reasonable limits of course. As long as Garvey wasn't proposing "cultural imperialism" or oppression of minorities or anything of that nature then he is not necessarily at odds with multiculturalism. Now maybe some black nationalists think they are against "multiculturalism" but again if they are not in favor of imperialism and oppression and believe in respecting other cultures that do not wrong them then I don't see why they should think they need to be.

 

[BvBPL]

Defining multiculturalism as merely being about tolerance seems too broad a definition. If multiculturalism, liberalism, and feminism are all defined as tolerance then you've proved your point only by begging the question.

Multiculturalism is, at least in part, about tolerance for other cultures within a greater community. If you segregate then you've removed the culture from the greater community. Segregation is antithetical to multiculturalism.

Garvey believed that black people should get on a boat and leave America for Africa. I don't think that idea would carry water for most multicultural thinkers.