At the New York Public Library yesterday a panel on multiculturalism. The Celeste Bartos Forum of the library felt like a French summer garden pavillion where we could almost smell the Cherry blossoms exploding all over the city. The backdrop of the debate was the increasing number of immigrants in the US and Europe, many of whom are Muslims. "Can the Enlightenment ideal of tolerance survive a resurgence of religious extremism?" The discussion brought together three  ideally placed scholars: Necla Kelek, Richard Rodriguez and Pascal Bruckner. It was elegantly moderated by Wame Anthony Appiah.

Necla Kelek, a Turkish writer in Germany asserted that the integration of Muslim Turks in Germany failed. Turks live in segregated, parallel worlds. She argued that if there is not an active push of the government to foster integration then it will not happen. Interculturalism rather than multiculturalism may be the answer. Can minorities be blamed for cutting themselves off in a country that did not welcome them when they first arrived? Why would they suddenly open up? Is culture a way to open to the outside world or is it a way to be locked up? Immigrants feel that Germany is a monolithic block that is being withheld from them. But perhaps in the absence of a national identity there really is no Germany anymore. What immigrant feel is being withheld may not exist any longer. Germany is a phantom.

For Kelek, consensus about culture ends if human rights are threatened. Then it is not culture, she said. As example she delivered the migrations from democratic, rural, secular Turkey to Germany 40 years ago. Most Turks at the time of their arrival in Germany were secular. But once in Germany they developed a strong connection to Muslim religion through a tight international network that links them.

Today, the Muslims who are deeply religious can be quickly identified by the black headscarves of the women. A man is not a Muslim if the wife does not wear this scarf. She is rarely allowed to leave the house and if she does, then only wrapped into with her headscarf. Turks import young brides, between 14 and 18 years of age to Germany who are still obedient and can be integrated into these Muslim contexts.

Kelek, who spoke in German, posed her statements in an amusing way that was breathing the air of German debate culture in which you have to make your mark rather emphatically.  

Pascal Bruckner's reported the massive move of the French well-to-do to school their offspring in private schools. The French system of the welfare state is threatened by the extent of this novel multi-tiered educational system. In France the state pays for medical emergencies and education and people are not on the street if they can't find a job. And yet, France and much of Europe, Bruckner claimed, is in national depression. Many, well qualified, young people can't apply themselves. Europe is retracted in a history of blood, feud and suicide and is obsessed with fanatic modesty. America may be hated by the entire world, Bruckner contended, but at least that means that America matters. Part of the French national depression is the fact that they don't count anymore.  

For Bruckner, America is as huge washing machine. He talked about his time in San Diego when a student took him to his citizenship ceremony. In a big stadium thousands raised their hands, swore allegiance and within a blink of an eye they were citizens. That's unthinkable in France, where this process is much more arduous.  The question that followed from that is that of openness. French and German cultures  are completed. They are finished. They are done. There is no interculturalism if the host culture is not willing to change, is not willing to be impacted by the incoming guest. This reminded me of Vilem Flusser's writing on the freedom of the migrant where he deliberates his ideas on how open the migrant should be to still contribute but not loose her mind. Romantics favor origin: they  are people deeply rooted in habit. The migrant has to keep her cultural background porous. Her identity needs to be like a door: never inherently open or closed. How can the immigrant mobilize a vision of herself?  

Richard Rodriguez (his talk turned me into a groupie) started by identifying himself as son of Pierre Trudeau. (Everything about multiculturalism is Canadian.) But Rodriguez did not keep silent about his mother either: Richard Nixon. The latter invented the Hispanic. "We are children of Nixon." Today in the US, Rodriguez demonstrated, there is only black and white. There are no brown inbetweens. The Mexican-American is stuffed with illegal connotations. The Mexican-American only takes, he does not give. To Americans, the Mexican stands for an invasion of illegality. Rodrigruez set the record straight: when Nixon invented the Hispanic he actually spoke about Indians. "Now all the Indians of Mexico are children of Nixon." If you go to Tucson today the Indians are back. Mexicans reclaimed the country that they once owned. Tucson today is like 1848. Americans thought that they had wiped out the Indians but now it turns out that history is a circle and the US is invaded: not by hispanics buy Mexican Indians. They bring with them a scary religiosity and sense of family that once defined America. What will Pochahantas do to Tom Swayer? The nature of their eroticism is still unclear.   There is widespread loneliness in American "I" culture. Mexico, in comparison is a "we" culture. The 38 million immigrants from Mexico work hard, are very religious and they are family people. History goes in circles. Rodriguez claimed that what holds us together is an allegiance to and participation in a tongue. "American, not English, is  a language that I speak. It is a multitude of languages."