The term multiculturalism may mean differently to different kinds of people. Theorists like Bill Martin (“Theories”, 2007)and Will Kymlicka among the prominent ones have successfully stirred many followers to apply, if not all of their theoretical positions, the highlights of their arguments (Kymlicka, 2003). Countries like Britain and Canada celebrate diversity and they do these with fervor. America is oftentimes called a “melting pot” especially today when the influx of immigrants and aliens have continued to come in unabated.
Foremost in the minds of intellectuals however, is that whether the kind of multiculturalism that anyone in governance proclaim a kind of approach as understood and presupposed by a majority. Different theories in reality, propose a diverse kind of understanding and explanation of multiculturalism. This term is to be appreciated in the context within a conceptual and a historical viewpoint. To apply this, connecting with a historical background, it is known that multiculturalism has developed in importance and distinction starting the 80s especially among the academic institutions or established halls of learning.
These were reflected precisely from the ideas cultivated from courses such as social studies, literature and history as these are naturally, roots of so-called “Eurocentric biases. ” This implies that absent here were obvious materials that were indigenous and to a greater extent ethnically diversified (Jay, 2002). Canadian theorist Kymlicka argues concerning what he calls a “multicultural citizenship. ” This is more understood especially that where Kymlicka is concerned, Canada is a picture of such typology.
This country is known for its bilingualism and the adherence to the diverse ethnicity from within its borders. Although this is so, the country is quite strict where immigration is still concerned to a large degree. They provide limitations to what can be accepted and who are likely to be admitted. At the outset though, no discrimination of race and culture might be felt (Jay, 2002). But critics say that the when a government puts restrictions whatsoever even on where a person may come from, this is a betrayal of the intentions for multiculturalism.
No matter the number of “members” within a group of minorities or indigenous peoples, they must be represented and their cultural identity equally be preserved: this is an implication of Kymlicka’s theory. In an organization, multiculturalism is inevitable; people come with a culture individually of their own. Hence, the drive to accept this reality is half the issue but a more positive stance with any person/s in leadership. As such, any organization with these aspects present will automatically be complex and difficulties surely will arise.
But when leaders accept that this is a fact and that everywhere in the world, any institution that exists rise on these complications and must thrive because of it and learn through it (Jay, 2002). An organization therefore is characterized by a give and take of ideas; someone at times or oftentimes is monopolizing the lead roles especially if a number of them happen to be of the same persuasion. Depending on who’s dominant, and what the organization successfully follows as the “voice,” there the rest of the group eventually follows.
We therefore see here, a plus and minus, pros and cons of multiculturalism.
Reference: Jay, Gregory. 2002. “What is Multiculturalism” University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Kymlicka, Will. 2003. Models of Multicultural Citizenship. Comparing Asia and the West, (n. p. , n. p).”Theories” Multiculturalism. Accessed November 20, 2007. file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/alan/My%20Documents/multiculturalism%20order/Multiculturalism%20-%20Theories