Rajeev Balasubramanyam

The Rhetoric of Multiculturalism

I.

1) A corporation is a body or society authorised by law to act as one individual unit. By this definition, Great Britain is as much a corporation as Shell, or ICI, or Microsoft. All corporations use logos, symbols, and slogans to attempt to define and communicate this individual identity to others. When a private corporation does it, this is usually called advertising, or PR, but when a nation- state does it, it is usually called propaganda. The word multiculturalism describes a form of propaganda used to define the corporate identity of Great Britain. This propaganda benefits both private corporations and the state, and is dis- seminated by both via the advertising and entertainment industries, the news- media, and the mass-produced, or at least mass-advertised, works of art. Propaganda is usually referred to as a negative thing, but it doesn’t have to be. The dictionary definition is, the organised spreading of doctrine, true or false information, opinions etc. especially to bring about change or form. So, the questions to ask are, what sort of propaganda is multiculturalism? Does it communicate a doctrine, or does it spread information, and if so, is this information true or false, is the doctrine worthy or unworthy?

2) Let us consider, first, multiculturalism as the spreading of information. Multiculturalist propagandas appear to be telling us that Britain is a society in which many cultures co-exist. But this has always been the case in Britain; history tells us there have been Angles, Saxons, Romans, Normans, Celts, Africans, South Asians, and many more. The English language is the product of huge ethnic intermingling. So why do we need an entire propaganda industry to tell us this now, in the 21st century? If we consider in what context the word is used, we soon see that multi- culturalism is rarely used to describe, for example, Scottish, Welsh and Spanish people living together; or punks, Goths, hippies, and Elvis impersonators, all of which are different cultures. The word is almost exclusively used to describe cultures differentiated by their skin colour. So what do we learn from this: that black and brown people produce cultural products that contribute to the aggregate culture of Britain? Surely this is obvious. All people produce culture, and if they are British, then whatever they produce will automatically become a part of the aggregate culture. So the word must mean more than this. 34 Rajeev Balasubramanyam

3) Let us consider it as ideology, or doctrine. Perhaps the word implies a commitment on the part of its users to accept, or tolerate, the cultural expression of black and brown people, perhaps to consume, learn from, or incorporate aspects of these cultures into their own. But again, there is no reason why this shouldn’t be the case. This has always been the way of societies, except where the establishment (today meaning a compound of the state and corporations) has actively prevented such a thing from happening, an ideology usually described as racism. It would seem, then, that the word multiculturalism refers to a country in which the establishment is not racist, does not try to actively suppress the cultural expression of black and brown people, and does not try to inhibit their cultural products from being consumed by white members of society.

4) So, a multicultural society refers to a society with black or brown people in it, and multiculturalism refers to propaganda that tells us that Britain, a multicultural society, is not racist, or rather, that the state and corporations are not-racist and so the society is moving in this direction. The problem with this is that it isn’t true. The state and corporations do practice racism. And yet, they spend millions on spreading this false propaganda of multiculturalism, millions which could be spent combating racism. The next question, then, is why?

5) Multiculturalism is fashionable. Racism, despite being endemic in the world today, is unfashionable, and fashion is a tool of the capitalist world used to sell products based on their image rather than their substance. To re- brand Britain as Multicultural Britain, is to re-brand it as modern, fun, sexy, and Cool, as in ‘Cool Britannia’. Why? Because cool sells, hence Britain sells; British films, Britpop, Britlit, the Young British Artists, clothing labels, airlines, cars etc. On the flip side, multiculturalism also brings money into Britain by attracting foreign investment of all kinds; heavy industry, light industry, art expos, film production, and sporting events like London’s bid for the Olympics or the marketing of Aamir Khan as a multiculturalist icon. It attracts intellectual and human capital, including academics, scientists, skilled and unskilled workers, tourists, and celebrities, now including Madonna.

6) Multiculturalist propaganda is also used, whether or not this is explicitly stated, to justify British foreign policy, the logic of which is as follows. If Britain is not a racist society with a racist establishment, why would this establishment, under the multiculturalist Prime Minister Blair, involve Britain in a racist war? Conclusion: the Iraq war is not a racist war but is entirely necessary for peace and global security etc. etc.