Interculturalism and Immigrants: Cesar Chavez on the Pluralist Foundations of Democracy
What do the foundations of US American democracy imply with respect to policies regarding the place of immigrants, including undocumented ones, in our political culture and system?
In a chapter from his book Toppling the Melting Pot, contemporary philosopher José-Antonio Orosco discusses the views of Mexican-American labor activist and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez. It is worthwhile to revisit them for the perspective they offer on this issue of contemporary debate.
Orosco argues that Cesar Chavez, like Jane Addams, “develops a certain interpretation of democracy from our public political culture which holds that restrictive immigration measures are contrary to the radical democratic traditions of US American society…These traditions enshrine equality, civic participation, and respect for cultural diversity” (103).
For Chavez, legal foundations such as the Bill of Rights — including the right to free speech and the right to assembly — “imply a commitment to civic participation and cultural pluralism by guaranteeing a civic space for the expression of different world views, different religious perspectives, and the right to confront the political authority over disagreements about the legitimate exercise of power” (109).
Accordingly Chavez’s mature, considered position regarding undocumented immigrants was that they “deserve amnesty because of the civic and moral obligations of US American democracy” (103). Allowing them to be exploited, or even legalizing them without providing a path towards granting them full rights of citizenship, violates the principle of equal human dignity and denies their capacity for self-determination. It prevents them from participating in social planning and decision-making that affects their lives directly.
Moreover, historically such measures have been tied to enforcing an assimilationist ideal of conformity to an Anglo-Saxon cultural standard. This assimilationist ideal holds that immigrants can come to the United States so long as they are considered white, learn to speak English and stop speaking their native languages, and profess Christianity, among other standards.
Chavez thought that Mexican immigrants in particular stood to make important contributions to deepen the pluralistic nature of US American democracy by contributing nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil disobedience in order to promote social justice. Chavez learned a nonviolent ethos from his mother’s dichos or Mexican popular sayings. He also developed nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil disobedience from Mexican traditions of pilgrimage, penitence, and revolutionary organizing. These practices could thus contribute to a “culture of peace” in the US.
Chavez advocated for an American radical democratic tradition through his principle juntos pero no revueltos — solidarity is possible without enforced cultural assimilation (109). Rather, immigrants ought to be able to participate in the public political life of their communities without sharing the dominant cultural mores in society.
Even though the state has a right to enforce immigration and naturalization restrictions, “there are ethical considerations that emanate from the idea of democracy itself that limit the state’s power over some undocumented individuals to participate in major decision-making processes that affect them” (110). Thus, even undocumented immigrants ought to be granted participation into political planning and decision-making, in so far as they are integrated into the civic and economic lives of their communities. This is the radicalness of Chavez’s position.
Regarding democracy, Chavez follows the tradition of W.E.B. Du Bois: “participation in power is the right of every human being” (108). Democracy is “an institutional way of organizing power to respect their capacity for self-determination, that is, their right to know and to choose what is good and appropriate for themselves, including how they wish to combat or partake of culture and ethnicity” (108).
Moreover, Chavez argued for a form of interculturalism rather than liberal group pluralism. According to the latter principle, the state tolerates minority groups that coexist without mixing so long as they acculturate to the public political culture — for example, I surmise, so long as they limit themselves to voting for elected representatives without challenging the current system and the elites that run it.
Interculturalism rather “calls for an examination of the ways in which…minority groups can intermingle with one another, and with dominant society, exchanging perspectives, experiences, and values. More importantly, those minority ethnic groups can challenge how the state itself, and its public political culture, is organized” (113). Mexican nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil resistance, for example, challenge the US American culture that associates power with violence and domination.
The implications of thorough-going interculturalism would be radical. US American political culture would stop associating “greatness” with violent power and domination and would rather associate it with a culture of peace. This is an ideal worth pondering, and perhaps, pursuing. What do you think?
Reference: José-Antonio Orosco, “Cesar Chavez and the Pluralist Foundations of US American Democracy” from Toppling the Melting Pot: Immigration and Multiculturalism in American Pragmatism (Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 2016)
In a chapter from his book Toppling the Melting Pot, contemporary philosopher José-Antonio Orosco discusses the views of Mexican-American labor activist and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez. It is worthwhile to revisit them for the perspective they offer on this issue of contemporary debate.
Orosco argues that Cesar Chavez, like Jane Addams, “develops a certain interpretation of democracy from our public political culture which holds that restrictive immigration measures are contrary to the radical democratic traditions of US American society…These traditions enshrine equality, civic participation, and respect for cultural diversity” (103).
For Chavez, legal foundations such as the Bill of Rights — including the right to free speech and the right to assembly — “imply a commitment to civic participation and cultural pluralism by guaranteeing a civic space for the expression of different world views, different religious perspectives, and the right to confront the political authority over disagreements about the legitimate exercise of power” (109).
Accordingly Chavez’s mature, considered position regarding undocumented immigrants was that they “deserve amnesty because of the civic and moral obligations of US American democracy” (103). Allowing them to be exploited, or even legalizing them without providing a path towards granting them full rights of citizenship, violates the principle of equal human dignity and denies their capacity for self-determination. It prevents them from participating in social planning and decision-making that affects their lives directly.
Moreover, historically such measures have been tied to enforcing an assimilationist ideal of conformity to an Anglo-Saxon cultural standard. This assimilationist ideal holds that immigrants can come to the United States so long as they are considered white, learn to speak English and stop speaking their native languages, and profess Christianity, among other standards.
Chavez thought that Mexican immigrants in particular stood to make important contributions to deepen the pluralistic nature of US American democracy by contributing nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil disobedience in order to promote social justice. Chavez learned a nonviolent ethos from his mother’s dichos or Mexican popular sayings. He also developed nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil disobedience from Mexican traditions of pilgrimage, penitence, and revolutionary organizing. These practices could thus contribute to a “culture of peace” in the US.
Chavez advocated for an American radical democratic tradition through his principle juntos pero no revueltos — solidarity is possible without enforced cultural assimilation (109). Rather, immigrants ought to be able to participate in the public political life of their communities without sharing the dominant cultural mores in society.
Even though the state has a right to enforce immigration and naturalization restrictions, “there are ethical considerations that emanate from the idea of democracy itself that limit the state’s power over some undocumented individuals to participate in major decision-making processes that affect them” (110). Thus, even undocumented immigrants ought to be granted participation into political planning and decision-making, in so far as they are integrated into the civic and economic lives of their communities. This is the radicalness of Chavez’s position.
Regarding democracy, Chavez follows the tradition of W.E.B. Du Bois: “participation in power is the right of every human being” (108). Democracy is “an institutional way of organizing power to respect their capacity for self-determination, that is, their right to know and to choose what is good and appropriate for themselves, including how they wish to combat or partake of culture and ethnicity” (108).
Moreover, Chavez argued for a form of interculturalism rather than liberal group pluralism. According to the latter principle, the state tolerates minority groups that coexist without mixing so long as they acculturate to the public political culture — for example, I surmise, so long as they limit themselves to voting for elected representatives without challenging the current system and the elites that run it.
Interculturalism rather “calls for an examination of the ways in which…minority groups can intermingle with one another, and with dominant society, exchanging perspectives, experiences, and values. More importantly, those minority ethnic groups can challenge how the state itself, and its public political culture, is organized” (113). Mexican nonviolent approaches to direct action and civil resistance, for example, challenge the US American culture that associates power with violence and domination.
The implications of thorough-going interculturalism would be radical. US American political culture would stop associating “greatness” with violent power and domination and would rather associate it with a culture of peace. This is an ideal worth pondering, and perhaps, pursuing. What do you think?
Reference: José-Antonio Orosco, “Cesar Chavez and the Pluralist Foundations of US American Democracy” from Toppling the Melting Pot: Immigration and Multiculturalism in American Pragmatism (Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 2016)
 |
| Cesar Chavez (Foto: Cesar Chavez Foundation) |
Comments
Post a Comment