“‘Unity in diversity’ is a myth; a sham exposed by the simple facts of social psychology.”
(Heywood, 1997, 2007)

Cultural diversity, or multiculturalism in a state, “implies a positive endorsement of communal diversity, based either on the right of different cultural groups to respect and recognition” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). Cultural diversity is an ideological principle because it is typically the ideal or perfectionist state of affairs in which numerous cultural groups and identities peacefully co-exist (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). While the ideal of cultural diversity would be a fastidious situation in which to exist, there are numerous examples of the failures that arise from multiculturalism, or where numerous cultures exist aside each other.

The “affirmation of one’s ethnic peculiarity” is a fundamental part of a strong identity to which one subscribes (Caws, 376). In light of this statement, culture is an essential part of existence because it forms part of one’s identity and person. Therefore, people have a natural intent and desire to prove and affirm their identity and to promote their culture, as Caws proposes ( p376). Subsequently, on a large scale, multiculturalism will not allow for individual freedom and therefore must be discouraged, because the dominant cultural group will invariably be the most successful in promoting their own set of interests and ideals, as that group will be the most able to achieve this (Berlant, Warner, 112).

Multiculturalism, which is gained from cultural diversity within a country or state, “seeks to link together identity struggles with a common rhetoric of difference and resistance” (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 114). This concept remains as the ideological form of the concept, as this situation would be idyllic should it actually happen. However, time and time again, the co-existence of more than one cultural group has proven to be perilous (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). In his critique of multiculturalism, Heywood states that multicultural societies are “inherently fractured, conflict-ridden and unstable societies” (1997, 2007:218), and that countries in which various cultures reside are typically prone to violence and cultural hostility as each culture endeavours to define and protect themselves. Examples of such are South Africa, Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, Germany and Turkey, France (and its immigrants), Britain (and its immigrants), and the devastation that is Darfur and its ‘ethnic cleansing;’ an example at its best of the dominant culture exercising its dominance.

South Africa is a brilliant example of multiculturalism: With eleven official languages and over fifteen cultures, each predominantly defined by a different language, South Africa is ‘diversity-101.’ The country’s motto, which lies beneath the coat of arms, states “diverse people unite” and can also mean “unity in diversity.” However, is there really unity in South Africa? Conflict remains to be seen taking place between different ethnic groups, as witnessed in the 2008 ‘xenophobic attacks’ in which inter-cultural violence took place. How can a nation feel united when there are eleven languages to be communicated in, or rather to be used to separate one from one’s neighbour? Additionally, the different ethnic groups further separate themselves politically, as they each vote for a party that represents their own people, as demonstrated in the outcome of the 2009 election, whereby each province showed favour towards a party that was run by members of their own group of people. As suggested by Heywood (1997, 2007:218), emphasis needs to be placed on the assimilation of all groups into one national identity, rather than the fostering of “peculiarist identities” that “threaten political instability, possibly threatening social breakdown and violence” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:217).

Multiculturalism is quite simply a form of collectivism, which endangers individual freedom as the rights of the individual are subordinate to those of the dominant social group (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 217). Typically, minorities that have not assimilated into dominant culture have been economically and socially disadvantaged due to cultural differences to the dominant culture (Caws, 373). In light of these points, it can be said that in order for a nation to function stably and for its people to be served effectively, the nation must be united. This will be achieved when the nation is monocultured, as Heywood suggests (1997, 2007:448), as this is the point at which discrimination and inter-cultural hostility will not take place, as all members of the nation share the same culture, or body of “beliefs, attitudes and values” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:448).

It has become clear from the evidence supplied that where there is cultural difference or ‘diversity,’ there is habitually a case for hostility or political instability. Heywood poses the question that is “how is political stability to be maintained in societies in which the monocultural bonds of political nationalism have been fatally undermined [by the promotion of multi-culture]?” (1997, 2007:215). The question is valid, because there cannot be “togetherness” or political stability where there is difference and multiplicity (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 215). Take South Africa and its eleven official languages for example (again), which has a seemingly stable political condition, but an extremely fragile inter-socio/inter-cultural relationship, as demonstrated by the recent xenophobic violence.

It must be noted that humans are “limited and dependant creatures, naturally drawn to others similar to themselves, who therefore fear or distrust people who are in some way different” (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 218). Therefore, in conclusion, it is clear that cultural diversity needs to be rejected and societies need to be protected against it. In nations where numerous cultures exist, all cultures must be assimilated into one, so that the nation will have true solidarity.

Graham Robert Pote is a Politics, Film, and Law student at the University of Cape Town.

It might help to be on the same page as to which of Madiba’s children we are speaking of, because there are many. The term “Madiba’s children” is more often than not used to refer to the generation that started school in 1995. However, it is probably safe to apply it to those who started the school system from 1990 onwards. Being black or white was never about one’s colour. Being black or white has always referred to a way of life, a culture, a social identity. Perhaps it was merely consequential that those who owned this social identity could be collectively recognised by the colour of their skin: ‘black’ or ‘white’. But what happens when the colour of your skin no longer gives you entitlement to that social identity? One’s instinctive answer may be that well then we’ve attained the dream. Arguably the dream is at its most desirable when attained by all. When only a small minority have been elevated to the educated, fancy twang echelons of ‘sosati’ it places them at odds with those in ‘society’, and henceforth begins the struggle to be a member of both these elitist groups.

If Madiba’s reign was the marriage of this country to economic prosperity, political freedom and social justice, then the so called Black Diamonds are the legitimate offspring who can partake in a flourishing ‘sosati.’ But what of those who seem to have been born out of this holy matrimony, quite harshly put, what of Madiba’s bastards? Who live in poverty and for whom legislative equality has not been translated to anything tangible. For many blacks this is their social identity and the society within which they live. Both these groupings have their snobs who will not allow you into their circle unless you qualify. I am sure every well-to do black has had the experience of visiting not so well off relations who eye you up and down as though you have descended from another planet. If it is not your clothes that are different, or that your parents have a car, then it will certainly be that your vernacular seems to have been weathered by the elements because it certainly no longer sounds like theirs. And similarly because you cannot hold a lengthy conversation about Gossip Girl, Boston Legal or even about Machiavelli or Descartes entry on their part into your world is all but restricted.

I don’t deny that this is the kind of superficial analysis of social dynamics that a short article falls trap to. I have made the dividing lines almost too simple, they unfortunately do not run as straight as this article purports. The lines are jagged, at parts interwoven and at others marred. Nonetheless, as ironic as it seems the new South Africa has meant that it is the black youth who also have to, in the words of the Krokodil, ‘Adapt or Die.’ Being “in touch with your roots” is a popular phrase and the fight to be an educated black who can still chill with igenge ekasi/elokshini can be seen at its best in political circles where fraudulent accents find a home: “agreement” becomes “agriment” and “country” becomes “cowntry”. Oh these fraudsters know how to pronounce these words very well but unfortunately the more a part of sosati you are, the further one is from their roots. So it would seem.

What good will come of this is that more and more people will realize that being black was never about the colour of one’s skin. But for now while we are at a loss to the answer to this most burgeoning of questions, we can look to Facebook for answers where some seem to agree that you’re a Truly South African Darkie when…

1. You’ve remixed English with your vernacular countless times.
2. You’ve accidentally said something like “reach” instead of “rich” or “kettle” when you meant “cattle”.
3. You think BEE is the best thing that’s ever happened in this country =D.
4. Randoms always claim to be your cousins…
5. Whenever there’s a family occassion, you always meet or discover a random new family member… ALWAYS!
6.You know black people can’t swim ‘cos they ain’t streamlined enough!

Amanda Ngwenya is a Law student at the University of Cape Town.