We must be in the habit of challenging ideological orthodoxies. This is a necessity. When an ideological position becomes so entrenched as to become off limits for debate, discussion, and critique, our views and our knowledge stagnate in a kind of dead zone.
A prevailing and damaging ideological orthodoxy, for example, is the belief that a critique of Israeli state policy is tantamount to anti-semitism. As a consequence, it has become nearly impossible to have an informed and productive discussion in virtually all US media outlets about the ethics and effects of Israeli state policy with respect to Palestine. That a serious critique of Israeli state policy is regularly confused with a hatred of the Jewish people is a sign of how poisonous this orthodoxy has become. Not only does it stifle potentially fruitful debate; it cheapens the suffering of those who face or have faced anti-semitism.
A similar buffer to critique has formed around the ideology of multiculturalism. Because multiculturalist ideology arose from right and noble origins--to account for, combat, and correct centuries of white-European colonialism, slavery, and discrimination against peoples "of color"--critiquing this ideology has become a dangerous proposition. To question not just the effectiveness, but the theoretical rigor of multiculturalism, is to risk confusion about whether one is questioning the noble political aims of the multiculturalist agenda, or simply the way the agenda itself has unfolded (perhaps to the detriment of everyone). In this way, then, multiculturalist ideology has become a buffered orthodoxy, its own critiques labeled 'reverse-racist' by its opponents, and its opponents' critiques labeled 'racist' by the orthodoxy.
My critique of multiculturalism here is most certainly not of the 'reverse-racism' variety. I'd rather not spend much time on this idea of 'reverse-racism'--an impoverished idea--but I feel it necessary to say a quick bit about it before moving on. It should go without saying that, though the net effect of correcting for historical discrimination, slavery, colonialism, deprivation of rights, etc. for 'protected' groups might be felt by those used to being the privileged group (i.e. white people of European ancestry) as a loss of agency, this is not racism or 'reverse-racism.' This is simply leveling the playing field. This is gathering everybody on the starting line of a 100m dash and moving them up 10m next to the people who, for centuries, have been given a 10m head start. I do, however, believe that socioeconomic distinctions are far more reflective of privilege than simply race; but this is a topic for another day.
My critique of multiculturalism is to do with a very different effect this ideology has had on both white people and people 'of color.' The recent 'Harlem Shake' meme illustrates this critique lucidly, I think. The 'Harlem Shake' meme typically features a bunch of arhythmic white people flailing and air-humping in silly outfits and with corny props to a techno-pop song called 'Harlem Shake.' Without going too far into it, the Harlem shake is actually a dance (which the idiots of the meme don't in any way resemble in their flailing), and has actual ties to the rise of hip hop culture in and beyond Harlem. This video will catch you up if you still don't know what I'm talking about. Needless to say, people from Harlem--predominantly nonwhite--are pretty pissed that their local dance has been so debauched and disrespected by a bunch of white college kids and office dorks.
The most troublesome aspect of the 'Harlem Shake' meme, then, is the fact that it's just another example of cultural pillaging, or the mining of minority cultures by white commercial culture. Such a process takes and distorts something of high cultural value to a minority group, profiting from what it's taken while giving back nothing to the group from which it's taken. Further, this is not a cultural appropriation, but an expropriation, the taking of something from a less powerful group by someone or something more powerful. A similar kind of cultural expropriation has gone on for centuries with Native American customs, crafts, and attire: lucrative culture industries run mostly by white people sell distorted versions of Native American cultures, miseducating consumers about such cultures in the process. Today, memes like the 'Harlem Shake' and the aggressive marketing of 'raw' rap music (above other kinds of rap music) are tailored to appeal to white suburban consumers; what becomes of the art form is, of course, an afterthought.
The billion-dollar question, then, is why is there such a market for ironic expropriations like 'Harlem Shake'? Why do people (at least, people who don't have a stake in the real Harlem shake as an important cultural artifact) find this idea so cool and so funny, to the extent that this bastardized version of 'Harlem Shake' has become such a powerful meme?
This question has many answers and many facets, so I won't claim to answer it all right here. But one facet of the answer is, I think, to do with the effects of the multiculturalist agenda.
By multiculturalist agenda I mean the concerted push, primarily from the left, to 'embrace diversity' by constructing a kind of cultural aura around people 'of color.' In practical terms this means raising our consciousness of race and ethnicity to such heights that race becomes the most powerful category of identification: black kids eat with black kids in the school cafeteria; Asian co-workers host pan-Asian cultural events; universities build 'resource centers' and 'affinity houses' for various racial and ethnic groups. Being 'of color' becomes literally a representation of colorful and meaningful living with rich cultural context, while being--what, without color?--becomes an empty basket, a cultural vacuum. To be white is to be blank, blanco, without any meaningful culture. Consequently, with blogs and memes like 'shit white people like/say,' 'white people problems,' and the candidacy of explicitly pro-white-privilege politicians like Mitt Romney, the cultural vacuum of whiteness continues to be filled with characterizations of 'white culture' ranging from the dull to the abhorrent. Whiteness becomes synonymous with, at best, no ethnic or cultural identity, and at worst preppy clothes, bad dancing, awkwardness, a lack of athleticism, being rich, and being greedy.
Lest you misunderstand me here, not all of what multiculturalism has wrought is bad; what's bad is the unintended consequence of allowing race and ethnicity to subsume culture and heritage, both for white people and people 'of color.' Though having a powerful racial identity as a minority is certainly politically expedient, it also has a way of essentializing race, and 'ethnicizing' minorities. For white people--especially poor, undereducated, and underprivileged whites--being told that you have no cultural identity but that of an oppressor at worst and and a pasty-faced New England yuppie at best has (has had?) catastrophic consequences. When multiculturalism arose with good intentions, it might have done better to foreground more meaningful aspects of identity, i.e. culture and heritage. How we look is not unimportant, and race should be part of such conversations about building a diverse, equitable, and harmonious society; but how we look is also just as arbitrary a category of identity as any other. A more successful and meaningful multiculturalism would (or should) be prepared to celebrate cultural diversity above racial diversity, allowing race to exist as it does within the folds of culture and heritage, and not above these.
In any case, I think a significant part of why there's a vast white market for expropriation memes like 'Harlem Shake' is because so many white people, particularly young white people, have a genuine but unhealthy obsession with the 'ethnic' quality of urban diversity and cultural traditions. A people without a developed sense of their own cultural identity would, I think, be best inclined to become culture vultures, mining other more coherent cultural identities for bits and scraps to make their own. No suburban white consumer would want the dangerous life described in countless rap songs; but those elements, like toughness, virility, brashness, acquisitiveness, which form the basis (and the garb) of a hybrid identity, draw white consumers to 'ethnic' and 'exotic' rap culture. In a similar way, few white, yuppie Facebookers really want to lean anything about the real Harlem shake, the rise of hip-hop culture in Harlem, the Harlem race riots, the Harlem Renaissance, etc.; but like the idea of people, white like them, entering into a kind of burlesqued dance battle over the internet.
Perhaps the number one rule of white people (like this author) is: never complain about being white. This is another ideological orthodoxy that must be challenged, not necessarily for the benefit of white people themselves, but for the benefit of the minority cultures that the white culture industry pillages on a regular basis. Interrogating what whiteness has actually come to stand for today is an important step toward combating harmful and disrespectful cultural expropriations, the racist and racialized anger that some whites unfortunately embrace, and the general deracination of whiteness. A true (and admirable) multiculturalist agenda should reclaim its root word, 'culture,' as its focus.
