PP. 1-10 of Multiculturalism, Integration and the Politics of Identity, ed. Kwen Gee Lian, Brunei
Darussalam University, Institute of Asian Studies e Singapore, Springer, 2016
Lian mette in rilievo come il concetto di multiculturalismo
nel senso liberale sia nato in Canada e in Australia negli anni Settanta,
incentrandosi intorno a questioni relative a “minority rights, human rights,
and liberal democratic values” (p. 1). In tal senso è stato applicato anche in
Asia, dove però le società multiculturali esistono da più tempo (“multiculturalism is historically embedded in these societies”, p. 4) e in cui, sulla scorta di
Hefner, il multiculturalismo coincide col pluralismo e con la società civile.
Occorre però non confondere i due termini:
“Pluralism requires voluntary group membership, multiple
affiliations, and reciprocal recognition. Indeed a plural society is one in
which differences are accepted and conflict is resolved through compromise and
reconciliation. These conditions do not exist in multicultural politics, as it
revolves around involuntary and mutually exclusive statuses and tends to render
recognition a one-sided act by the majority society alone” (p. 2).
Lian cita Parekh per spiegare che le società
multiculturali constano di culture diverse con visioni del mondo differenziate.
Nel caso specifico di Singapore, tuttavia, come afferma Chua, si può privilegiare
la comunità, o gruppo, per fondare una concezione multiculturale della politica:
“Multiculturalism is not incompatible with the communitarian
polity. The challenge for the communitarian state, in contrast to the liberal
state, is not mediating between the rights of individuals and the claims of
collectives but in reconciling the conflicting demands multiple membership
within the hierarchy of communities may impose on the individual” (p. 3).
Un altro connotato della questione è la differenza tra il
multiculturalismo europeo, legato all’immigrazione, e quello di società come il
Canada e l’Australia, in cui il multiculturalismo rappresenta un’ideologia
identitaria complessiva.
Relativamente
a Singapore, “multicultural governance, ubiquitously touted as multiracialism
by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), has functioned as a pillar for
Singapore’s nation-building project since independence in 1965” (p. 5).
Occorre
però distinguere tra versioni diverse e coesistenti del multiculturalismo singaporiano:
quella proposta dallo stato, quella circolante nella sfera pubblica e quella
privata e quotidiana dei cittadini: “The congruence between the official
articulation of multiculturalism as nation building, as everyday reality, and as
the basis of effective governance, makes Singapore unique as a model for the
practice of multiculturalism” (p. 5).
[Roberto
Bertoni]
