A netfriend wrote:

In a recent article in the Financial Times about the present religio-cultural tensions in the UK, the writer hypothethised that the multi-cultural policies followed in the UK may have resulted in what he called “plural monoculturalism”.

I can’t work out if “plural monoculturalism” is just a clever-sounding expression, or if it is real description of what might have happened in the UK, in some religio-cultural groups.

Response:

[‘Plural monoculturalism’ describes] a nation where separate ethnic and religious groups live apart within the same polity….

A contrasting dynamic is the admixture of various particular traditions and forms into a new cultural complex….

http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/03/plural_monocult.php

and

In contrast, having two styles or traditions co-existing side by side, without the twain meeting, must really be seen as plural monoculturalism. The vocal defense of multiculturalism that we frequently hear these days is very often nothing more than a plea for plural monoculturalism. If a young girl in a conservative immigrant family wants to go out on a date with an English boy, that would certainly be a multicultural initiative. In contrast, the attempt by her guardians to stop her from doing this (a common enough occurrence) is hardly a multicultural move, since it seeks to keep the cultures separate. And yet it is the parents’ prohibition, which contributes to plural monoculturalism, that seems to garner the loudest and most vocal defense from alleged multiculturalists, on the ground of the importance of honoring traditional cultures–as if the cultural freedom of the young woman were of no relevance whatever, and as if the distinct cultures must somehow remain in secluded boxes.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/02/22/amartya-sen-and-the-dilemmas-of-multiculturalism-and-plural-monoculturalism/

See also http://www.csus.edu/org/pswip/Papers/Plural%20Monoculturalism.doc

And lots more…

— —

Shalom! Rowland Croucher