The Multicultural Debate: Another Objector

While one leading Churchman was making waves, creating a furore and stealing the show over the last weeks, as a result of comments related to the subject of Sharia Law in Britain, another, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s was busy rejecting multiculturalism. Not that the Cardinal’s view has come as a surprise to me. As one Catholic commentator noted, this was merely a gradual adjustment to a long held view (Catholic Herald 15/2, 2008). I am, of course, always suspicious when leaders (church and political) pump up the rhetoric about multiculturalism. Not that I am against a healthy critique and discourse. While insights may appear well considered and intended, if one digs deep enough below the surface one may well find that some critics problem with multiculturalism is actually about the challenge it poses to their power base and their normative stake in an all white and class orientated society.

Why would the Cardinal, whose See (Westminster) is located in the heart of one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the Western world, come to hold such a position? As I considered this question, I wondered what all the Black and Asian faces of the Catholic Church in Britain will make of his comment. Will those involved in racial justice and multicultural work in the Catholic Church in England and Wales be reconsidering their commitment to work towards a truly inclusive church that values diversity and celebrate differences?

It would be no surprise that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor seems to be drawing from the experiences of his Irish immigrant ancestors and their integration into English Society. What is a better starting point than one’s own experience and that of one’s people? This is a fundamental starting point for doing "Black theology". The relationship, however, is more complex than the Cardinal may be able to posit in an interview or a short piece. And a danger is comparing and equating the experiences of one group of people with another group – especially if the differences are more physically visible!

It would seem as if Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is concerned that multiculturalism is the main culprit to the unity that England and/or Britain badly needs. Would it be unfair to deduce that an implication of this concern can possibly relate to the proclivity towards uniformity or oneness that refuses to give agency to and celebrate the manifold gifts of diversity and intermingling? Somehow the talk about “unity” takes me to the divided “body of Christ” and the Christian Churches that are still unable come to the one table of Jesus to celebrate a common meal. Much theological ink has been spilled over the "body and blood"!

The argument that foreigners and those who are different coming to England should decide to become part and parcel of the society by assimilating and integrating does have a number of implications. From my subjective and suspicious reading the following strikes me: is unity here about becoming like white English? When compared with our ecumenical conversations over Church unity, the similarity of thinking is quite striking: unity of the Church means that the erring Protesters and dissidents need to return home and become like the authentic/pure Church firmly and historically rooted on Peter.

Reading the Cardinal’s reported comments about his rejection of multiculturalism from a postcolonial perspective, I am struck by the subtle ways in which the colonial agenda plays out and is being re-inscribed in the discourse : for instance, there is clearly a strategy to “curtail hospitality” and deny diversity by wanting to homogenise everyone to fit into the mould of sameness. Further, the colonial mindset becomes evident in the desire to silence differences (especially theological) by articulating normative views. Those who are different especially the ones making competing claims and who refuse to fall into the mould of what it means to be English (compare with what it means to subscribe to the true faith) should be dealt with. They are the culprits who sabotage the ethos of authentic Englishness. Multiculturalism is dangerous as its company of hybridizers are bent at diluting English authenticity and purity. A problem is that if the narrative of this land is yet to find a way of including the narratives of those whose textures, colour, and cultures differ from the dominant group and if a homogenous kind of Englishness is what must constitute the dominant narrative then I am not sure what can make up for its absence!

copyright jagessar