But conversation is where it's at ...

... and being relegated always hurts.

I had my most spontaneous insight into Critical Multiculturalism during a café conversation with L on Saturday. I have been struggling with the last part of my thesis; the part where I analyze my own experience, so this insight came at a good moment. The conversation went as follows:

A community with an exclusive view of its own identity, in this case we were talking about the deaf community, discriminates against all others they don't think meet the standards of "deaf-ness." This doesn't mean a hearing person can't be accepted by the deaf community, be friends, or even be married to a deaf person, but if that hearing individual wishes to be identified as deaf, that is, if they take their personal identity from the deaf community, they will never be accepted as such.

This is the same principle that underlies nationalism. It is not inherently violent against outsiders, but it is the final authority on who can and cannot be a part of the 'group'; a person wishing to identify themselves as a certain nationality or culture must first get approval of that culture or nationality (often in the form of passports). In this sense, a persons own feelings about where they belong in the world are secondary. As I mentioned above, this in-and-of itself will not lead to violence every time, but it is the mechanism that permits violent behavior to be encouraged, as it places one identity/nationality/community above the others.

This means there is never a true acceptance of the individual within these groups, nor is there ever an acceptance of outsiders either. This static, rigid interpretation of culture, or community and of identity essentializes norms and values to the point of creating division and and an unwillingness to share yourself, your rituals, with others for fear of it being corrupted. Under the right circumstances, this leads to violence. By circumstances I mean economic insecurity, territorial insecurity, etc. In these situations leaders will emphasize the differences between yourself and the 'other' in order to pit you against the other. We see this in the US with the fear of Arabs, in the Balkans between Serbia and Kosovo, in Asia between China and Tibet.

What Critical Multiculturalism offers is an opportunity recognize that culture is not an inherent 'thing' that we are born with, that cannot change, and that its standards are exclusive. Culture and community should rather be seen as fluid, evolutionary, learned and inclusive, as this will permit a much deeper understanding of the 'other' and a reduction in one's possessiveness of your own culture. Identity is inevitable; we need a world-view in order to understand what goes on around us in the world, and as such it is inevitable. But this doesn't mean it has to be exclusivist and divisive. A critical multiculturalist attempts to challenge their own ideology by going into the cultures of others, living as they do, and then looks back at themselves. This perspective exposes the power dynamics of cross-cultural relationships and de-essentializes norms and values.

Ultimately, this is not about giving up your own values, but simply about being able and willing to look at yourself from the 'other' perspective, and having a willingness for you culture to change. This means shedding your 'ownership' of your identity and accepting a individual on their own terms, not on the terms you want them to operate. But this is also a huge challenge to the status quo and a very difficult thing to achieve, even for someone as willing as me.

How is this relevant to soccer? Soccer should never be so important that it prevents you from seeing other things as important ... just kidding. Soccer is a bit antithetical to Critical Multiculturalism as it emphasizes a team mentality. But as long as soccer is not a metaphor for the norms and values in society, as long as it is not held up as symbolic of the power of the culture, then it can be a positive communal game and bloody good fun!