Pluralism, Consensus and the Ambiguities of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism and the attempt to accommodate cultural diversity have been questioned from different fronts. On the one hand, political criticism, based on “fear†and “anxiety†about “others†combined with emphasis on national identity has characterised the political agenda in terms of security in Europe. On the other hand, philosophical criticism questioned concepts such as “identity politics†, the “politics of recognition†and the “politics of difference†which aim to emphasise the struggle of minorities. This position points out that multiculturalism seems to promote extreme diversity at the expenses of consent, a necessary condition for governing. This has also exposed the general assumption that accommodating ethnic and religious minorities, in the light of plurality of values and interests, is central to liberal democracies thus uncovering the difficulty of achieving political consensus in increasing culturally diverse societies. Within this context, this work will first explore concepts such as “identity politics†, the “politics of recognition†and the “politics of difference†in relation to the assumption that to achieve a consensus based on cultural difference may undermine civil consensus. Moreover, focus on identity and culture diverts from economic justice undermining multiracial class solidarity. Secondly, in order to determine the ambiguity of consensus and pluralism, this work will explore the work of John Rawls and Jean Françoise Lyotard. In their works, it is implied that modern societies are characterised by innumerable narratives and doctrines making them pluralistic. This conjecture is common in both thinkers, but for the former it is a positive result of the development of civil society where consensus is attainable, for the latter any form of consensus is to be avoided because can be a tool for political authority. This contradiction points out that a form of consensus is needed to achieve a politics of social and political cohesion within society but at the same time it warns about the danger of a dominant culture and the threat of exclusion.