The strong-weak distinction for multiculturalism is a strange one. It does have the benefit, from your point of view, of saying something like this. The view of multiculturalism that I think is the right view--all these things called "culture", whatever that is, can never be judged from their exterior and must be judged holistically, not in terms of objectionable parts. That view, you argue, while objectionable in and of itself, as least has the courage of consistency.
Then there is, in your view, the weak argument, in which you hold on to the view that this thing you are calling "culture" is holistic and must be judged in its totality or not at all and never from its exterior. But some folk simply don't have the courage of their convictions, so when confronted with some obviously horribly objectionable practices within this thing you are calling a culture, they object to them. But they are hypocrites to do so because they've just contradicted their view.
Most likely you are quoting some extant views and if I ask you for sources, you will pop them up. Fine. I don't doubt one can find odd views for anything.
You wish to use India as an illustration; I wish to use the American southwest. Kumar will have to argue with you about India; I've not read seriously enough to do so.
Let me repeat that the only philosophical place one can ever have a problem with my Southwestern illustrations is if one believes (a) there are universals; (b) they are knowable; (c) "cultures" are holistic entities; and (d) one must make totalistic judgments about them, on the order of bad culture, good culture.
Again, I will also repeat that my approach to these issues derives from Richard Rorty's work. |
