[researcherer (OP)]

Dear friends,

Yesterday, my brother and I had a discussion about the multicultural status of a society.

The main question was if there is a specific quantitative threshold value for a society to be considered multicultural.

For example, in my country 40-50 years ago, few foreign people were living in. In the social dialogue, and in the parliament, of those times, there was not any mention to the term “multiculturalism”.

In recent years, in the social dialogue, the aforementioned term is being used more and more often.

My question is:

Do you have in mind any scientific evidences regarding the quantitative dimension of multiculturalism?

How much foreigners an ethnic society should have to be considered multicultural? What percentage?

Thank you in advance.

Postscript:

I have not studied political sciences; I apologize for any misusing of the terminology that I chose.

[Origin]

The main question was if there is a specific quantitative threshold value for a society to be considered multicultural.

I don't think there is a consensus on that.

I have not studied political sciences; I apologize for any misusing of the terminology that I chose.

I doubt that anybody will care much.

[alancalverd]

Logically, if you can discern two distinct cultures within a geographical area, you have identified a multicultural society, regardless of how many people subscribe to each culture.

However I doubt that many social scientists would find much to talk about if that were their definition. When politicians use the term there is usually an implication of mutual tolerance, inter-group trade, and even inter-group marriage. At another political level there is an implication that such mutuality is not merely tolerated but to some extent mandated by education and even employment quotas.

Frankly I find the entire concept disgraceful. Why should I judge anyone on the preconceptions of others? What matters to me is what you do in public, not what your parents did at home.

Some years back I was on a train with a lawyer friend, through the London suburbs. He said "Look at all those lovely fences! Disputes occur at boundaries. Every fence is a week's work for a lawyer!" Identifying people by culture, whatever that means, just adds an unnecessary reason for strife.

[evan_au]

I think that there is no specific threshold for a country to be considered multicultural. With modern air travel, most countries are a mix of cultures.

I think that the degree of “multiculturedness” can be assessed by survey questions like:
- what country were you born in?
- what country were your parents born in?
- what language do you normally speak at home?
- what ethnic group do you identify with? (including none & multiple)
- what religion do you identify with? (including none)

Of course, this may not fully quantify the deep cultural divide that still persists in the USA after several centuries.

[Bored chemist]

Multiculturalism is an idea.
Someone sat on their own can have that idea.

[evan_au]

Some aspects of culture can be derived from birth date, eg "Baby Boomers", "Gen X", Gen Y", etc...

Perhaps a trendy modern indication of culture is shown by the increasingly common question on web forms: "What gender do you identify with?" (with options including "prefer not to say").

In many countries, it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of many cultural aspects. This leads to a dilemma:
- If you are not discriminating, why do you need to ask these questions?
- If you are a researcher investigating cultural bias, you really need to know answers to these questions
- In cases where there is a conscious attempt to right historical injustices, there is a need to ask about culture.
- For example, in Australia, it is common for questionnaires to ask whether you "Identify as an Australian Aborigine or Torres Straight Islander"

[alancalverd]

I do wonder slightly about "righting historic injustices". Isn't this the reason for the continuing wars in the Middle East, the Nazi invasion of Poland, and just about every other inter-group feud that has degraded humanity in the view of more rational species every day since the Ice Age?   

If you treat every individual on his/her merit, rather than family history, you instantly cancel all presumed debt. I've never oppressed cheated or knowingly killed anyone: why should I apologise on behalf of those who did? 

[Bored chemist]

If you are not discriminating, why do you need to ask these questions?

The usual reason is so that you can audit the cultural diversity.
Imagine a small company run by a blatant racist bigot.
If nobody asks about the racial and cultural makeup of the staff, how will anyone be able to prove that he's driving a coach and horses through the equality act?

[Bored chemist]

I do wonder slightly about "righting historic injustices".

It's a strange idea, isn't it.

Should Blair (who was PM when this idea hit the headlines) have apologised for Thatcher's sins?
Who will apologise for Boris?

But it is still true that I should acknowledge that the beautiful buildings of many of our cities were built with money stolen from slaves.

[alancalverd]

"Stolen from" doesn't quite ring true. A slave has no significant money, but slave labor produced the cotton and sugar that destroyed the Indian economy and the teeth of Europe, in exchange for money that built the great public museums, art galleries and colleges that now benefit the descendants of slaves.....Economics is a funny business.

[Bored chemist]

Well, the money they earned was kept by the slave owners rather than given to those who did the work. Not strictly theft, but no more honest.

[evan_au]

Major orchestras around the world have moved to a system of "blind auditions". Apparently the percentage of women increased dramatically after this was introduced.

I've never oppressed cheated or knowingly killed anyone

I have heard of studies where bias was revealed in surprising ways.
- For example, identical job applications were sent for various roles, but changing aspects such as the sex of the applicant, or the surname from "typically white" to "typically black", or changing the neighborhood of the applicant. They then measured the number of responses they received.
- This suggests that these factors still influence the reaction of the reader, perhaps subconsciously

[alancalverd]

If nobody asks about the racial and cultural makeup of the staff, how will anyone be able to prove that he's driving a coach and horses through the equality act?

It's difficult to discuss this rationally without being labelled as a bigot, but I'm quite used to being wrongly abused, so here goes.

Let's deal with cultural first. How many vegans, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims should a pig farmer/slaughterhouse/meat processor/pork butcher/pie maker employ? It's a big industry, but cannot represent the cultural diversity of UK society.

How many Catholics are employed by the Church of England? And vice versa?

I sit on a medical research ethics committee. Every so often our lords and masters demand equality and diversity audits, and to nobody's surprise there are significantly more women and ethnic minority members in the service than national statistics would imply. It's a big group - probably 1000 or so around the country - a statistically significant sample.  So every so often I fill in the form and add the question "so what are you going to do about it? The idea of sacking anyone because they are black or female does not seem to be an option, and there is no likelihood of positive discrimination in favor of white males, so why bother with the audit?"   

A lot depends on the basis of your legal system. If it is based on rights, it will throw up anomalies like those above. If it is based on wrongs it may be more difficult to enforce but far  more rational in practice. It is wrong to discriminate against anyone on irrelevant grounds, and it is insane not to appoint the best applicant for the job.

     
 

Major orchestras around the world have moved to a system of "blind auditions". Apparently the percentage of women increased dramatically after this was introduced.

I recently attended a seminar on sexism in jazz. Some very depressing stories were told by well-known women in the business, but most agreed that orchestras were worse, though nobody came up with a reason.  I met a technically brilliant saxophonist in a dance band  and asked if she would like to guest with my jazz quartet. She said "Jazz lead is all about strutting and showing off. Girls don't do that." Maybe that's the underlying reason for the success of blind auditions - it offsets years of social conditioning.

[Bored chemist]

How many vegans, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims should a pig farmer/slaughterhouse/meat processor/pork butcher/pie maker employ?

Roughly speaking they should employ the most competent applicants for the job. Why would they care, in that case, about their faith?
The law does, of course, recognise that atheist preachers are an issue.

[alancalverd]

The law does, of course, recognise that atheist preachers are an issue.

I'm not sure about that. At least one Archbishop of York has expressed doubts and wasn't even cautioned by the fuzz, though Jehovah did respond by setting fire to the cathedral. The wise discretion of an experienced sergeant, or a gap in the law?

[Bored chemist]

I'm not sure about that

I am.
Subsection (6)(e) applies only if A shows that, having regard to the nature or context
of the work—
(a) the requirement is an occupational requirement, .

The church is allowed to decline applications from atheists who would like to be priests.
But the law does not require them to do so.