1

TheAnxietyConcerningCulturalHomogenization

IanAngus
DepartmentofHumanities
SimonFraserUniversity

WhenIwentbacktoBuenosAiresin2000,forthefirsttimeafterlivingthere
forayearin19934,mywifeVivianaandIwerehorrifiedtoseeMacDonalds and
BurgerKingonAvenidaSantaF.OneofthemostlovelythingsaboutBuenos
Airesisthecafs,thecafconlecheandmedialunasdegrasa;toseethemceding
spacetotheseuglyimportsproducedavisceralreaction.Ilaternoticedthatthese
internationalthatistosayU.S.fastfoodoutletsservedespressocoffeeinsmall
plasticcups.Onecouldalsogetitcortadowithalittlebitofmilkwhichisa
commonwaytodrinkitthere.Ifthehomogenizationintoaninternationalbland
styleproduceshorror,isacortadoinaplasticcupenoughculturaldifferenceto
assuagethereaction?Howmuchdifferenceisenough?Whatsortofdifference?Is
culturalhomogenizationreallytakingplaceifitmakessomeadaptationtolocal
conditions?Orisittheblandnessanduglinessthatistheproblem?Wouldwebe
horrifiedifhomogenizationreproducedthestyleofthelovelyoldstreetsofPrague?
Thechargeofculturalhomogenizationhasbeenusedtocriticizeandresistthe
phenomenonwhichitnames,thephenomenonoftheimpositionofculturalnorms
andpracticesbystrongersocialactorsontheweakeraphenomenonwhich,at
leastintheeyesofitscritics,pertainstomanyareasofpolitics,economics,artand
materialculture.Thus,inthebackgroundpapertothecurrentworkshopModjtaba
Sadriapointsoutthatinpreviousdiscussionsakeyissuewasrelatedtothe
processesofhomogenisationofrepresentations.Duringthediscussionsitbecame
clearthatifsuchprocessesdoexist,andtotheextentthattheyexist,theybecomea
limitationevenadenialofpluralismingeneralandthepluralityofmodernities
inparticular.ThechargeofculturalhomogenizationIwillexplainwhyIprefer
thistermtospeakingofrepresentationsbelowisthusbroughtforthinthename
ofafear,orananxiety,forthelossofculturaldiversityor,asisoftensaid,genuine
culturaldiversity,whichmeansaculturaldiversitythatmatterstothespeaker.In
addressingthequestionofwhethersuchprocessesofhomogenizationdoindeed
exist,othershavepointedout,ineitherahopefulorresignedmooddependingon
theirownstandpoint,thatthesupposedhomogenizationneveractuallytakesplace:
thereisalwaysadaptationtolocalconditions,socialmovementsthatresist,andthe
inprinciplefactthatareproductionneverreproducesanoriginalexactly(andwhat
isanoriginalanyway?isitnotitselfformedthroughinteractionwithprior
influences?).Thus,everyactualphenomenonofculturaltransmissionseemsto
involveaninterplayofhomogeneityandheterogeneity,aninterplaythatcanbe
describedbyvarioussocialscientificmethodsandisvisibletothenakedeye.The
remainingdifficulty,however,isthatthecriticalfunctionoftheconceptof
homogenizationistherebyexhaustedandthatevaluationofsocialprocessesand
trendssuccumbstostraightforwarddescription.

Iwouldliketosuggestthatculturalhomogenizationisnotadescriptive
concepteitherinthewaythatitisusedbycriticsoftheprocessorinthewaythatit
relatestothesocialphenomenatowhichitispertinent.Itisasecondorderconcept,
inthesensethatitrefersnottothedescriptionofsocialrealitybuttothecategories
throughwhichwedescribesocialreality.Ifitisusedsimplyasadescriptiveconcept
itfunctionsinanentirelydifferentwaythanasitisusedthecriticaldiscoursefrom
whichitemerged.Culturalhomogenizationisacriticalconceptinthesensethatit
getsitsmeaningfromdefininganddescribingadeeprootedtendencywhich,though
threatening,isnottotal.Notonlyisitnottotal,butthedeploymentofthecritical
conceptisasocialactionthataimsatmakingitevenlesstotal.Asacriticalconcept,
itisdesignedtoindicateandilluminatesomethinglackinginthecurrentsocial
framework.Thatlackisthelackofasufficientlystrongtendencytowardcultural
diversityduepreciselytothecorrelativetendencytowardhomogenization.Asa
criticalconcept,itspurposeisnotdescriptionofastateofaffairsbutanintervention
intothewayinwhichwethinkaboutthatstateofaffairsinordertoopenup
possibilitiesforfutureactionthatwouldnototherwisebeapparent.Moreexactly,a
criticalconceptallowsonetodrawthelimitsofapplicabilityofhomogenizationand
thereforetoopenupotherpossibilities.Thus,Iwouldagreewiththesuggestion
behindtheworkshopthathomogenizationisaproblemandthatamoreadequate
socialframeworkwouldinsomewayincorporateheterogeneityinamore
satisfactoryfashion.But,notethatculturalhomogenizationisonecriticalconcept;
thereisnoreasontobelievethatitistheonlyone;itwouldrequirecombination
withothercriticalconceptstoformulateacriticaltheoryfullyadequateto
contemporarysociety;itisherethatotherconceptssuchasthecultureindustry,
colonialism,Eurocentrism,classexploitation,anddispossessionthathavebeen
deployedincriticalsocialtheorywouldfitin.
Mypresentcontributiontothisdebatewillnotbetojustifytheconceptof
culturalhomogenizationasacriticalconceptassuch,nortoaddresswhatsortof
culturaldiversityissufficientlypluralorgenuine,buttoexplainwhytheanxiety
concerningculturalhomogenization,ananxietythatgivesrisetothecritical
concept,isanunavoidableaspectofmodernsocietiesandthereby,Ihope,toexplain
thelegitimacyofsomesuchcriticalconceptanditsrelevancetoissuesofsocial
inequalityandpower.Todoso,Ineedtotouchlightlyuponanumberofissuesthat
areeminentlydebatableontheirownterms.Iwillattemptthiswithtenleague
boots,asitwere,stridingoverthemanyspecificdebatesinanattempttoestablisha
largerperspectiveontheanxietyitself.
1.TheSpiritofModernityandMaterialCulture
Thetermandconceptofmodernityreferstomanyphenomenadependingon
thedisciplinesandcontextsinwhichitisused.Europeanmodernityaroseoutofa
complexofhistoricalchangesinwhichwecanperhapssingleoutthreewhichare
significantforcontemporarythinkingabouttheanxietyconcerningcultural
homogenization:thedevelopmentofmodernscience,withitsintrinsicrelationto
technology,thatoccurredinthescientificrevolutionofthe17thcentury;theriseof
themodernstate,withitsstandardizationoflanguageandadministration,which
tookplaceunevenlyoveralongperiod;andthedifferentiationofthespheresofart,

science,economicsandpoliticsintoseparatecompartmentswhichisinseparable
fromtheprocessofsecularization.Allofthesearerelatedincomplexwaystothe
riseofcapitalism,thoughIwilladdressthisaspectoftheproblemseparately
below.1Insofarasinpremodern,traditionalsocietiesasociallydominantreligion
tiedactivitiesinthesespherestoanoverreachingconceptofthegoodandthe
sacred,secularizationallowstheseparatedspherestofollowintrinsiclogics.
Itmaywellbedoubtedwhetherthereisasingleconceptofmodernitythat
wouldsubtendthesephenomena,letalonethoseotherelementsofart,politicsand
philosophythatmightbeadded.Nevertheless,laterEuropeanthinkershavenoted
similarcomponentsinthemthatarethebasisforaspecificconceptofmodernity
essentiallytiedtorationality.MaxWeberisacrucialfigureinthisregardnotonly
sincebothhissociologyofmodernEuropeandhiscomparativesociologyofworld
religionsdependuponidentifyingsuchaconceptofreasonbutbecauseitis
exemplaryofmorewidespreadideasaboutmodernityinEuropeancultureand
thoughtideaswhichhavealsohadsignificantimpactaroundtheworld.Weber
identifiedaconceptionofreasontiedtobothtechnologicalscienceandbureaucratic
socialorganizationwhoseformalismnegatedanyconceptionofsubstantivereason
inherentinareligiouslylegitimatedoverreachingconceptofthegoodandthe
sacred.Hestatedthatinprincipleasystemofrationallydebatablereasonsstands
behindeveryactofbureaucraticadministration,thatis,eithersubsumptionunder
normsoraweighingofendsandmeans.2Ifwecanconnectmodernitytoaformof
reasonassubsumption,asMaxWebersuggested,aformthatencompassesbothits
scientifictechnologicaloriginandbureaucraticsocialorganization,andifwe
suspectthatthereexistsapressuretowardadoptingthisforminsocietiesother
thanwhereitfirstdeveloped,thenwemustaddressthequestionofwhetherthis
pressureisauniversaloneorwhetheritisinessencethepressureofonecultural
formuponothers.MaxWeberarticulatedwhatwasonceacommonview,inEurope
atleast,whenhestatedthataproductofmodernEuropeancivilization,studying
anyproblemofuniversalhistory,isboundtoaskhimselftowhatcombinationof
circumstancesthefactshouldbeattributedthatinWesterncivilization,andin
Westerncivilizationonly,culturalphenomenahaveappearedwhich(asweliketo
think)lieinalineofdevelopmenthavinguniversalsignificanceandvalue.3Alot
dependsnowonwhethertherearereallyanygroundsforthinkingsuchathing.One
ofthekeystounlockingthisissueistheanxietyconcerningcultural
homogenization.
Fromitsbeginning,modernityhasgeneratedananxietyaboutthe
homogenizationofculture.Sincemodernityisinstitutedthroughaclaimto
knowledgebasedonscientificrationalitythatisessentiallytiedtotechnological
innovation,itishauntedbythepossibilityofhomogenization.Modernityisare
naissance,anewbirthorbeginning,whicharticulatesitselfagainstanotionofthe
pastthatistobeovercome.Thepastisthegroundofculture,usuallyarticulatedina
religion,thatisnecessarilydiversesinceithasbeendevelopedthroughtraditional
practicesthatdivergeandinteractinvariousplacesontheearth.Culturealways
impliesculturesintheplural,whereasscientificrationalitypointstowardasingle
truth.Thus,theanxietyaboutculturalhomogenizationisdeeprooted.Modernity
beganinEuropeandtheanxietyconcerningculturalhomogenizationfirsthaunted

thediverseEuropeanculturesandnations,butmodernityhassincebecomeglobal
andtheanxietyhas,likewise,becomeglobal.
Alivingculturecomprisesbothongoingpracticesandrepresentationsofthose
practices.Indeed,alivingcultureconsistsintheinterplaybetweenpracticesand
representations.Representationsarealwaysproducedandmaintainedbypractices
andpracticesrequireunderstandingandarticulationtobecontinuouslyfollowed
andallowinnovation.Whenculturebecomespurelyrepresentation,ithasentered
themuseumthatistosay,thepracticesthatsustaintherepresentationareother
thanthosethatarerepresented:thelivingculturehasrecededintothepastandits
representationsremaintobesustainedandconsultedbyothers.Thus,apurely
representational,orsemiotic,approachtounderstandingcultureisinsufficient.We
needtounderstandcultureasconstitutedbycertainpracticalactivitiesandas
punctuatedbyinstitutingevents.HusserlsconceptofUrstiftung,whichwemay
translateasprimalfounding,primalestablishment,orprimalinstituting,butfor
whichIwillsimplyusetheterminstitution,sincethisEnglishtermhastheuseful
doublemeaningofsomethingthatisbothbroughtintobeing,orinstituted,and
somethingwhichpersistsinbeingandcontinuestoprovidethesettingwithinwhich
othereventsandpracticesaresituated.4Pertinently,Husserlusedthistermforthe
ancientinstitutionofgeometrythatwastakenoverbyDescartesandalsoinrelation
toDescarteshimselfastheprimalfounder,orinstitutor(Urstifter),ofthemodern
ideaofobjectivisticrationalism.5Whenanewpractice,suchasscientific
technologicalmodernity,isinstituted,timeisdividedintoabeforeandanafter.
Aftertheinstitutionofmodernityallotherhumaneventsandprocessesarerelated
to,formedandreformedby,thisinstitution.Tounderstandthesignificanceofsuch
institutions,anewformofquestioningisrequired,aquestioningthatinquires
backwardfromwhathasbeenestablishedtotheinstitutingformationitself.While
thisisahistoricalinquiry,itisnotsointheusualsense.Itisaninquiringbackward
intowhatmusthavehappenedinorderfortheinstitutionthatwenowexperience
tohavecomeintobeing,whatHusserlcalledtheaprioristructurecontainedinthis
historicity.6
Theinstitutionofmodernityreconfigurestraditionalculturesbyturningthem
intorepresentationscutofffromasustainingculturalpractice.Itprovidesthe
settingfromwhichtheyaregivenmeaning.Museumculturecanbeadequately
preservedwithinscientifictechnologicalmodernityinsofarasthatmodernity
preservestherepresentationsofthetraditionsandculturesagainstwhichitsnew
institutionpositsitself.Butcanalivingculture,aninterplayofrepresentationand
practice,survivetheinstitutionofmodernity?Modernityitselfproducessuchan
interplayandthusitselfinstitutesalivingcultureofmodernity.Butweareagain
entitledtoaskwhetherthisisasingle,andinthatsensehomogeneous,living
culture,whetherallotherculturesarenotrelegatedtotheirrepresentationwithin
modernityasremnantsofthevarioustraditionsthatonceweredispersedacrossthe
world.Dotheybecomemerelyrepresented,wheremodernitymonopolizesthe
powerofrepresentation?Theanxietyconcerningculturalhomogenizationwould
notbeassuagedeitherbymuseumremnantsorbyacultureofmodernitythatitself
containsthedangerofhomogenization.Itpointsustowardtheproblemoftime
insofarasanewepochcameintobeingwiththeinstitutionofmodernity.

2.RationalUniformityandtheMetaphoroftheCity
Atthebeginningofscientifictechnologicalmodernity,RenDescartes
articulatedRulesfortheDirectionoftheMindwhosefirstrulestatedthatthe
purposeofourstudiesshouldbethedirectionofthemindtowardtheproductionof
firmandtruejudgmentsconcerningallthingswhichcometoitsattention.7Science
inthisformwasnotmerelyknowledgeofmanythingsbutsystematicknowledge
restingonafirmfoundationthatwastobeguaranteedbyacorrectmethodanda
cumulativeprocedurethatrequiredacuttingofffrompreviousattemptsat
knowing.FrancisBaconagreed,arguingthatitisidletoexpectanygreat
advancementinsciencefromthesuperinducingandengraftingofnewthingsupon
old.Wemustbeginanewfromtheveryfoundations,unlesswewouldrevolve
foreverinacirclewithmeanandcontemptibleprogress.8IntheDiscourseon
Method,Descartesreflectedonthisnewmethodicalrationalityintermsthat
illustrateitswideapplicability.Henotedthatworksbyonepersonaremore
beautifulandbetterplannedthanthoseremodelledbyseveralpersonsusing
ancientwallsthathadoriginallybeenbuiltforquiteotherpurposes,thatpeoples
whowereoncehalfsavage,andwhobecamecivilizedbyagradualprocessand
inventedtheirlawsonebyoneastheharmfulnessofcrimesandquarrelsforced
themtooutlawthem,wouldbelesswellgovernedthanthosewhohavefollowedthe
constitutionsofsomeprudentlegislator,andattributedtheflourishingofSpartato
thefactthatitslawsweredesignedbyasinglelegislator,andsoalltendedtothe
sameend.9Similarly,hejudgedthatthosegreatcitiesthathavegrownfromancient
townsandhamletsarebadlyarrangedcomparedtooneofthesymmetrical
metropolitandistrictswhichacityplannerhaslaidoutonanopenplainaccording
tohisowndesigns.10ThecoremetaphorbywhichDescartes,andmanyothersalso,
understoodtheinstitutionofmodernrationalitywasthatofchildrengrowinginto
adults.11Inareversalofprevioususage,inwhichtheancientsreferredtothose
wholivedalongtimeagoandwereassumedtobewiserbecauseoftheirantiquity,
Baconthoughtthattheoldageoftheworldistobeaccountedthetrueantiquity;
andthisistheattributeofourowntimes,notofthatearlierageoftheworldin
whichtheancientslived;andwhich,thoughinrespectofusitwastheelder,yetin
respectoftheworlditwastheyounger.12Thus,thedistinctivenessofthemodern
conceptionofreasonwashidden,sinceitwasmaskedasthedawnofreasonassuch,
comparabletounderstandingthepassagefromchildtoadultastheonsetofreason.
Thenewsciencewasseenbyitsproponentsnotasanewmodelofscienceand
reason,butastheawakeningofreasonfromirrationaltradition.Traditioncould,
therefore,haveverylittletorecommendit.Thenewscientificparadigmdidnot
remainapartialenterprisebutbecamethemodelofreasonthroughoutmodernity.
Itbecametheleadingcomponentwithinanewformoflifeextendingtosocial
organization,cityplanning,legislationandbeyond.Aformoflifewhich,afterthe
initialphaseofenthusiasticmodernizationabated,couldbeseentocontainan
anxietyconcerningculturalhomogenizationduetocuttingofftherootsoftradition
andlivingculturaldiversity.Istheonlyalternativethatbetweenthelivingcultureof
modernityandanostalgiaforpremodernremnants?
Itisforthisreasonthatinourowntimewearepressedtounderstandthe
possibilitiesforculturaldiversity.Wecannotshakethisanxietyfromourselves.Itis

rootedintheassumptionswithwhichwemodernsreasonandlive.Butwecan
strivetoturntheanxietyintothinking.Suchthinkingwillnotonlyneedtoembrace
culturaldiversity,butwillalsoneedtoreformtheconceptofreasonitself.This
thinkinghasbeenunderwayforsometime.Itmaybeindicatedbythe20thcentury
turnfromsciencetolanguageasthecentralissueofphilosophy,inthefirstplace
sincelanguageiscontemporaneouswiththehumanraceandinherentlyresists
beingputonanewrationalfoundationand,also,becausethedifferencesbetween
dialectsandlanguagesspontaneouslystandsformoreextensivecultural
differences.LudwigWittgensteinputthisattractionoflanguagetocontemporary
philosophyintothemetaphorofacity.Ourlanguagecanbeseenasanancientcity:
amazeoflittlestreetsandsquares,ofoldandnewhouses,andofhouseswith
additionsfromvariousperiods;andthissurroundedbyamultitudeofnew
boroughswithstraightregularstreetsanduniformhouses.13Welatemodernshave
cometosuspectthatthestraightstreets,regularhouses,andsuburbansprawlthat
standformodernrationalityisadeadendstreet,astreetthatneedstobere
vivifiedbylivingcultureinitsdiversity.ItiswiththisbackgroundinmindthatI
wanttoposeincontemporarytermstheanxietyconcerningcultural
homogenization.

3.TheAnxietyConcerningCulturalHomogenization
Modernitycanbeunderstoodasaconceptionofreasonandasthe
predominanceofthatconceptionofreasonthroughouthumanlife.Itisbyfollowing
thisthreadofreasonlinkedtoscienceandtechnologybutuniversalizedbeyondit
thatwecanfindourwaythroughthemanymeaningsofmodernityandcritiquesof
it.Itisthisconceptionofreasonthathasproducedtheanxietyconcerningcultural
homogenization.
Theanxietyabouthomogenizationneverassumedthatabsolutelyall
differenceswouldorcouldbeabolished.Thereremainsignificantcultural
differencesaroundtherelationshipbetweenindividualandcommunityin
ProtestantversusCatholicversionsofEuropeanmodernity,forexample.Actual
culturalidentitybetweenallhumanbeingsandgroupsisnodoubtapriori
impossible.Itisevenhardtosaywhatitwouldmean:iftwogroupswere
completelyculturallyhomogeneous,thensurelytheywouldbeoneculturalgroup
andnottwo.Theanxietyoriginatesfromtheperceptionofculturalforcestending
towardhomogenizationsuchthataspectsofonesculturalidentitytowhichsome
importanceisattachedarefearedtohavenoplaceinthefuture.Itisthetendency
towardhomogenization,notactualhomogenizationitself,whichproducesthe
anxiety,sinceonecanalwayspointtosomeexistingculturaldifference.Moreover,
thetendencytowardhomogenizationwouldnotbeofgreatconcernifitwere
thoughttobeamarginal,remediableortemporaryphenomenon.Itisthus
significantthatthehomogenizingtendencyinmodernityisbasedonitsconception
ofreason,not,say,onthearbitrarydictatesofagivenking.Athirdaspectofthe
anxietycanbeaddedtoitstemporaldimensionanditsdeeprootedcharacter:that
whicharousestheanxietyiscentraltothehumanbeingasitisconceivedwithina
culture.Reasonisanaspectofhumanityformosthumanseverywhere,butfor
Europeansthatpervasivesignificanceofthedefinitionofhumansasrational

animalsmadefamousbyAristotleiscentraltothenotionofEuropeitself.For
culturescentrallycommittedtorationalityasthehumanessenceahomogenizing
tendencybasedinreasonisasourceofdeepanxietysinceitinvolvestwoaspectsof
whatoneunderstandsoneselftobe:arationalanimalliketoallotherhumansin
thisrationalityandahumanbeingofaparticularsortduetoparticipationinagiven
culturethatmaybedisappearing.Reason,centraltothehumanessence,isfearedto
betheagentofahomogenizationthatwoulddeprivehumansoftheirparticularway
ofbeinghumans.
Inemphasisatleast,thisanxietymanifesteditselfinEuropeasatemporal
relation,arelationtothetraditionalbeliefsandpracticesofonespastthatsituated
itasdifferentfromanotherculture.However,itshouldberecalledthatthe
constructionofEuropeasanidentityisnotindependentofthehomogenizing
tendencyofmodernity.14Thecentresofmetropolitanlifemostcommittedto
modernrationalityexertedapressureonthemoretraditionalruralareassothat
thepressuretomodernizationwasnotonlytemporalinrelationtoonespastbut
alsospatialininvokingarelationbetweenpowerfulcentresandmarginalareas.
Thesetemporalandspatialrelationswereoftencompactedinsofarastherural
areasundergoingmodernizationwereseenascatchingupwiththecentres.Now
thatthephenomenonofmodernityhasspreadfromitsEuropeanorigintoinfluence
everycultureintheworld,thepressuretomodernizationisoftenseenasapressure
toEuropeanizationmoreoftencalledAmericanizationthatcomesfromoutside.
Totheextentthatthepressuretomodernizationisseenascomingfromoutside,the
protectionofculturalidentityofteninvolvesaretreatfromoutsidetoinside,a
phenomenonthatoccludes,orevenexpels,thepressurestowardhomogenization
andmodernizationinside.Bothtemporalandspatialrelationsareconstitutiveof
anyculturesubjecttomodernization,thoughoneoranothermaydominate
dependingonthedegreeofcommonalityexperiencedbythenewlymodernizing
traditionalculturewiththealreadymodernizedcentres.
Onecannotwriteatthepresenttimewithoutanintenseawarenessofone
dominantcontemporaryforminwhichtheretreattoinsidetraditionagainst
modernitymanifestsitself.Theanxietyaboutculturalhomogenizationhasbecome
forsomeapanicaboutmodernitywhichhasledtotheriseofFundamentalisminall
majorreligioustraditions.Fundamentalismconsistsintheattempttoescapethe
anxietyofthelossofidentitybyturningbacktheclockpriortothearrivalof
modernityandbelievingintheletteranddetailofrevealedtruth.Thedeepproblem
hereisthatanattempttoturntheclockbacktotraditionisnotthesameastradition
itself,whichevolvedandmutatedinitsowntime.Thepanicforescapefrom
modernityfreezes,orattemptstofreeze,aninventedtradition.Itdoesnotdiscover
traditionitself.Itwantstorejectmodernityrootandbranch,especiallytheriseof
individualconscienceandsecularism,atthesametimethatitusestheresultsof
modernitymassmedia,theInternet,weaponry,stateandinternationalfinance
tobolsteritsinventedbaselineinthepast.SuchFundamentalismislockedina
deathdancewithunrepentantmodernity,amodernitythatattemptstoexpelits
ownanxietyinamirrorformtothatofFundamentalism.Theybothseekwithout
hopeofarrivalanendtoanxietyand,forthisveryreason,donotfaceuptothe
questionofourtime,butintensifyitinthemomentthattheyseektoescapeit.

ItisnotenoughtopointtotheparticularEuropeanoriginsofthisconceptionof
rationalitytoestablishthatitiscultureboundandnonuniversal.Every
phenomenoninhumanexistencecomesintobeingatsomehistoricalsituation
underparticular,andprobablyunique,circumstances.Unlessweweretodenyany
universalityatalltoanyhistoricalhumanexperienceapositionthatIwillnot
addressnow,butonethatisinternallyincoherentwehavetoacceptthatsuch
universalitydoesnotemergeallatoncesimultaneouslyeverywhere.Infact,the
emergenceofuniversallyhumanpossibilitiesfromdeterminateparticular
circumstancesprovidesagroundforaninternalcritiqueoftheclaimtouniversality.
Tobetrulyuniversalitmustshedthemerelycontingentfeaturesofitshistorical
emergence.Thus,aprocessofselfcriticismisinitiatedthatdrivesmodernity
understoodasaclaimtouniversalityrootedinreasonforward.Thisdynamism
canbedeeplyunsettlingandproducesaninternaltendencytoanxietywhichisnot
identicaltothatexperiencedbythosewhoexperiencemodernityasanexternal
impositionbutwhichhassomeofthesameroots.

4.TheIndustryofMaterialCulture
Ihopetohavesaidenoughtoestablishthatthereisananxietyconcerning
culturalhomogenizationduetotheconceptionofreasonas(quicklystated)
subsumptionunderarulethatcharacterizesmodernity.Butitisnotclearwhythis
conceptionofreasonhasgrownbeyonditsoriginalboundaries,firstunifying
Europeundertheswayofitsmostmodern,urban,industrialareasandthen
transformingtherestoftheworldinitsimage.Theplanetarycivilizationcurrently
emerginghasdevelopedfromthisconceptionofreason.Nevertheless,the
characteristicsofmodernityalreadyelaborateddonot,inmyview,accountforthe
spreadofmodernity.Itisonethingtotraceaphenomenonbacktoitsemergencein
ordertoclarifyitsfeaturesandsurroundingconcepts(asIhavedonethusfar);itis
anothertoaddressthequestionofwhyaphenomenonhascometopredominate,
notonlywhereitarose,butinothersocietieswhichdidnotgiverisetoit.Itishere
thatthequestionofcapitalism,whichIpostponedattheoutset,canbeseentobe
thedecisivefactor.Capitalismhasbeenthevehiclewherebythefeaturesof
modernityhavebeenexportedandimportedsuchthattheanxietyconcerning
culturalhomogenizationhasbecomeglobal.
Capitalismisaneconomicsystemthat,atitsoriginandinitsdevelopment,isa
detraditionalizingforcesinceitprogressivelyreorganizeseverwideningdomains
ofhumanlifethroughrelationsofexchange.Capitalismbeginsasasocialsystem,
ratherthanacircumscribedtendency,whenlabourbecomesanexchangevalue.
Fortheconversionofhismoneyintocapital,therefore,theownerofmoneymust
meetinthemarketwiththefreelabourer.15Labouristherebytornfromall
relationsofpersonaldependencyandcommunityownershipinwhichitwas
embeddedandorganizedthroughthelabourmarketbypaymentinwages.The
surplusvalue(profit)thatisaccumulatedthroughindustrialcapitalismleadsto
hugeconcentrationsofwealthandpowerthat,inourownday,characterizeglobal
corporationsmorepowerfulthanmanynationstates.Theexpansionaryandanti
traditionalnatureofthesetwobasiccharacteristicsofcapitalismasaneconomic
systemconstantlychangingtheformofproductiontoincreasetheconcentration

ofwealthprovidethemotivepowerthroughwhichthecharacteristicsof
modernityhavebecomeplanetary.Withoutassertinganypriorityorcausality
betweencapitalismandmodernity,certainsymbioticfeaturesofthemshouldbe
noted:1]arelianceonrationality,thatistosayacertainconceptofrationality,
orientedtoefficiencyandcausalexplanationthatisintrinsicallyindividualistic,or
atomistic,anddestructiveofcommunityproperty;2]correlativeconceptsof
traditionandnatureasirrational,asmereexistencewithoutinternallyarticulated
reasonorvalue(withoutfinalcause,orgoal,inAristotelianterms);and,3]an
institutionofnewtimeagainstthepast;thepastdenigratedinfavourofconstant
innovation;thefutureasthelocusoforientationandexpectedsatisfaction.These
internallyrelatedcharacteristicssharedbymodernityandcapitalismhaveallowed
theirsynthesisadistinctivepowerinunderminingothersocialordersaroundthe
globeinasimilarmannertowhichthiswaspreviouslyachievedinEurope.16
Asaneconomicsystem,capitalismwasinthefirstplaceorientedtowardthe
reorganizationanddevelopmentofdirectlyeconomicgoods,butithasexpanded
overapproximatelythelasthundredyearstotherealmofculture,whichhasbeen
reorganizedandrationalizedonthesameprinciples.Wemaydistinguishthree
stagesofcultureundercapitalism.17Thecultureofearlyindustrialcapitalismwas
orientedaroundtheclassrelationsoftheworkplacewhichyieldedaclasscultureof
theworkingclassontheonehandandthecapitalistclassontheother(aswellas
survivingremnantsofaristocraticandpeasantculture).Theyperformeddifferent
activitiesindifferentplaceswhileconsumingdifferentgoodsfordifferentpurposes.
Atthebeginningofthe20thcenturycapitalistenterprisesbegantocontrolnotonly
productionprocessesbutalsothemarketinwhichtheyweresold.Increasing
productionofconsumergoodsrequiredasufficientnumberofbuyers.Toachieve
this,workershadtobeturnedawayfromtheirtraditionalclassbasedactivitiesand
entertainmentstowardthosethatdependeduponmanufacturedconsumergoods.
Advertisingwasakeyelementofthisprocess.Massproducedculture,theculture
industry,operatesthroughdifferentialaccesstothesamesphereofgoods.Itthus
levelsclasscultureandconstructsanenclosedsphereofsocialidentitiesthrough
homogeneousculturalexpressionsproducedascommodities.Sincethe1960sthere
hasbeenafurtherchangeduetotheinfluenceofmassmedia,theexplosionofnew
technologies,theglobalreachofculturalindustries,etc.whichhasoftenbeencalled
postmoderncultureortheinformationage.Leavingbehindthehomogenization
producedbythecultureindustryinpolemicalrejectionofclassculture,theprocess
ofpostmoderncultureistheproductionofstageddifference:socialidentities,which
aremarkedbytheirdifferencefromotheridentities,aresimulatedthroughthe
circulationofimagesproducedascommoditiesbyglobalculturalindustries.
Obviously,thisdescriptionoftheexpansionofcapitalismcouldbeexpanded
considerably,buttheupshotinthiscontextisthatitistheexpansivedynamicbuilt
intocapitalismthroughwhichmodernity,asIdescribeditabove,becameaglobal
phenomenon.Globalcapitalism,asaneconomyembracingbothmaterialproduction
andculture,uprootsallremainingtraditionalelementsandsubjectsthemtothe
industryofmaterialculture.However,theglobalcultureindustryguaranteesthat
theprocessofculturalhomogenizationisnowoverlaidbythestagingofcultural
differences.

10

5.AnAllusiontoIssuesofMulticulturalismandSecularization
Theanxietyconcerninghomogenizationisapervasivefeatureofourworld.It
hasnowbeencomplicatedbybeingoverlaidbyananxietythatculturaldifferenceis
beingstagedanddoesnotcorrespondtotheauthenticaspirationsofaliving
culturehoweverdifficultitmightbetodefinesuchauthenticfeatures.Many
featuresofrecentpoliticalandculturallifecanbeseenasresponsestothiscomplex
anxiety.Iwouldliketobrieflymentiontwophenomena:multiculturalism,bothin
Canadaandelsewhere,andsecularization.InthiscontextIcanonlyalludetothese
phenomena,eachofwhichhasbeensubjecttoextensivediscussion.Butmypurpose
isnottointerveneinthesedebatesherebutrathertoclarifyaconceptualissue
aboutthecontemporarysignificanceofculturaldiversity.
Duetothelargenumberofdistinctculturalandnationalgroupsthathave
recentlyimmigratedtoCanada,andvariousotherfeaturesofCanadianpolitical
culture,arichdiscourseconcerningmulticulturalismhasemergedwhich,among
otherthings,producedtheFederalMulticulturalismAct(1988).18Without
addressingthemanyspecificissuesthatthisdiscourseincorporates,itispossibleto
suggestthattherearecurrentlytwodominantpositions:Onethatclaimsthat
multiculturalism,thoughperhapsinsufficientandinneedofcriticismand
improvement,isanadvanceovertheideaofanationstatethatassumesorenforces
culturaland/orreligioushomogeneityamongitspopulation.Anotherthatclaims
thatsuchculturaldiversityisinrealityasham,thatitfunctionsbyarrayingethnic
identitiestoorderanddomesticatethemwithreferencetoasupposedlynonethnic,
naturalized,identitythatisCanadianwithoutqualification.AsIreportedelsewhere,
IrecallsomeonesayingtogeneralassentataconferenceorganizedbytheCanadian
InstituteofUkrainianStudiesin1984thatThegovernmentsideaof
multiculturalismislikeDisneyland.19Canadianmulticulturalismwouldbetheheir
oftheethnicracialhierarchydeployedbytheBritishEmpireinthiscase.This
secondpositionhastheadvantageofpointingoutthateliminationofcultural
differenceisnottheonlymodethroughwhichahomogenizingculturecanwork.
Culturalhomogenizationisalsoatwork,moreinsidiouslybutalsomorepervasively,
ifcertainculturaldifferencesareseenasdeviationsfromanassumednorm.Inthis
case,diversityisdomesticatedbybeingconfinedtoasurfacephenomenon
incapableofaddressingthedeepertendencytohomogenization.Differenceis
staged,whereashomogenizationconstructsthestage.Thispositionhasbecome
quiteinfluentialontheinternationalscenethroughSlavojieksclaimthatthe
realuniversalityoftodaysglobalizationthroughtheglobalmarketinvolvesits
ownhegemonicfiction(orevenideal)ofmulticulturalisttolerance,respectand
protectionofhumanrights,democracy,andsoforth;itinvolvesitsownpseudo
Hegelianconcreteuniversalityofaworldorderwhoseuniversalfeaturesofthe
worldmarket,humanrightsanddemocracy,alloweachspecificlifestyleto
flourishinitsparticularity.20Thereisnodoubtthatthissubsumptionofculture,
andthediversityofculture,beneathaunifyinglogicofstateoreconomyisone
meaningofrecentmulticulturalism.Itremains,however,toaskwhetherthestaging
ofculturaldifferenceisthewholeofmulticulturalism.Theanxietyconcerning

11

culturalhomogenizationandthestagingofdifferencewouldhaveusask:what
woulditmeantobemulticulturalallthewaydown?
Iwanttomakearelatedremarkonsecularization.Secularizationiswidely
thoughttobeaninevitableconsequenceoftheformofrationalityinherentin
Europeanmodernity.SecularizationinvolvesthedeathofGodandthusempties,or
leavesundetermined,thetranscendentpositioninrelationtowhichallimmanent
positionscanbeorderedandinwhichtheyculminate.Lossoftranscendenceleaves
thefieldofidentityanddifferencewithinwhichaculturedefinesitselfinrelationto
anotherculturetobedeterminedwithinthefieldofcultureitself.Thediversityof
humanculturesisnolongerseenasasetofvariationspossibleinrelationtoa
humanuniversalitydefinedbyitsrelationtothesacredsource.Aftersecularization,
culturesareunderstoodtogaintheiridentityinrelationtoculturesfromwhichthey
aredifferentandobtainthisdifferencethroughtheassertionoftheiridentity.The
tendencytowardculturalhomogenizationleadssuchdifferencesinthedirectionof
greatersuperficialityorseparationfromthehumanessenceassuch.Thesearchfor
identitywithinafieldofdifferencethatiscutofffromuniversalitynecessarily
threatenstoleadtowardthephenomenonofFundamentalismmentionedearlier.
AlthoughFundamentalismisusuallythoughtofasareligiousphenomenon,itcan
nowbeseentobeamuchdeepertendencyrootedinmodernityitself.If
Fundamentalismlosesthesensethattheoffendingotherhumansaregenuinely
humanalso,itpartakesinaculturalfieldthatisessentiallysecular.Similarly,tothe
extentthatapparentlysecularthinkerscriticizetheabsolutizationofcultural
differences,theyappealbeyondtheculturalfielditselftoahumanuniversality.Such
humanuniversalitymaynotbethoughtinreligioustermsbutitnevertheless
occupiesthesamespaceasreligioustranscendenceinrelegatingcultural
particularitiestospeciesofthegenus.Asecularculturalfieldthusnecessarilyleads
toaphenomenonthatSigmundFreudidentifiedasnarcissisminrespectofminor
differencesinwhichitisalwayspossibletouniteconsiderablenumbersofmenin
lovetowardoneanother,solongastherearestillsomeremainingasobjectsfor
aggressivemanifestations.21Insofaraswenowoccupyasecularculturalfield,we
aredriventoaskforthegroundfordistinctionsofidentityanddifference.My
schematicpresentationsoftheanxietyconcerningculturalhomogenization,andthe
anxietythatculturaldifferenceisstagedbyastillhomogenizingthoughoften
invisiblesource,havebeenintendedtoclarifythecontemporaryissuesinvolvedin
suchaclassicalquestion.

6.ConcludingRemarksaboutCriticalReflexiononDifference
Theinitialconfigurationofmodernityandcapitalismrenderstraditional
sourcesofmeaningirrelevantforthemodernworld.Thisproducesananxiety
concerningculturalhomogenization,andarelatedanxietyforthestagingofcultural
difference,whichistheexperientialsourceforthedevelopmentofacritical
conceptualvocabulary.Hauntingsuchavocabulary,especiallyinthecurrent
intellectualclimate,isthedifficultyoffixingameaningforthenotionofan
authenticculturalmeaning.First,awordonthenotionofbeingauthentic:a
culturalmeaningisnotauthenticinandofitselfbutcouldbeauthentic,orbecome
authentic,bybeingincorporatedintoalocal,livingculture.Authenticityisthen

12

anotherwayofsayingthattheculturalpracticeoccursintandemwithsocial
critiqueanddecolonization.Soadefinitionofauthenticityassuchisnotneeded.
Whatisneededisanaccountofacriticalvocabularythatcangroundsuchacultural
practice.IwillconcludebycontrastingthedominantHegelianvocabularywitha
phenomenologicalone,nottosuggestthatacriticaltheoryadequateto
contemporarypracticeisalreadyavailable,needingonlytobepolishedup,butto
suggestinwhatdirectionitmightbefound.
Modernizationandthetendencytowardculturalhomogenization,including
thestagingofdifference,bringsaboutanewappreciationoftradition.This
observationinitsturnmotivatesthethoughtthatmodernizationcamefrom
somewhereandwas,inthefinalanalysis,aproductoftradition.Thus,itisoften
suggested,theoppositionbetweenmodernityandtraditionisreallyadialectical
oppositionwhosetensionsareworkedoutintime.Throughhistory,modernityand
traditionarereconciled.WemightcallthistheHegelianconceptofreflexionafterits
masterpractitioner.Itcontainsseveralproblems,however,whichrenderit
unsatisfactoryfromtheviewpointofourcontemporaryissues.Itdoesnotspeakto
thepositionofthosepulledintomodernizationasanexternalforce,whetherwithin
Europeorbeyondthoseforwhomthespatialdynamicpredominates.Tothem,it
suggeststhatwhilemodernizationmaybemitigatedbyelementsoftradition,the
pathforwardisneverthelessoneofmodernization.Hegelianreflexioncannotbut
identifyitselfwiththeforwardmarchofhistoryandtakeitforgrantedthat
whateverisvaluableintraditionwillbepreservedonthegroundofmodernity.The
sameobservationmaybemadeaboutthosewhodonotoccupythecommanding
positionsofmodernization.Theyaredrawnintoitbythepowerofothersandare
notlikelytobeaswellreconciledtotheverdictofhistoryasthoseforwhom
modernizationisaninternalimperative.Inaddition,theHegeliansynthesisdoesnot
raisesufficientquestionsabouttheformofreasoninmodernityitself.Itovercomes
thisformthroughitsowndialecticalformofhistoricalreason,tobesure,butitdoes
notcriticizethisformofreasonitself.Itoverlaysasecondreflexiononthefirst,but
thefirstreflexionmustbe,andremain,asitis.
Phenomenologicalreflexionoperatesinanotherfashion.Itdoesnotmove
progressivelyforwardovertheinsufficienciesofmodernitybutbrushesbackward
againstthegraintouncoveritsinstitutingmotifs.Ittracesmodernreasonbackto
Galileanscienceinordertouncoverthesubstitutionofmathematicalformsforthe
worldofexperiencewithwhichitbegan.InHusserlswords,therehasneverbeena
scientificinquiryintothewayinwhichthelifeworldconstantlyfunctionsas
subsoil,intohowitsmanifoldprelogicalvaliditiesactasgroundsforthelogical
ones,fortheoreticaltruths.22Modernitythusmustbeunderstoodasinvolvingthe
distinctionbetweenscienceandlifeworldandalsotheirreciprocalrelation,an
understandingthatcomplicates,butconsiderablyimproves,understandingofthe
modernconceptofreason.Second,phenomenologicalreflexionundoesthe
progressiveassumptioninthedialecticalreconciliationofmodernityandtradition.
Progresscanbeattributedtoscientificknowledgebuttheeffectofscienceand
technologyontheexperiencedlifeworldhasculturaldimensionsthatproducethe
tendencytohomogenizationandthereforecannotinitselfbeseenasprogressive.In
theflatteninglanguageofsocialscience,culturecannotbeseenassimplya

13

dependentvariabledrivenbyscientificreason.Itisthusthroughphenomenological
reflexionthatIwouldexpectthattheanxietyconcerningculturalhomogenization
andstageddifferencecanbeadequatelyaddressed.Iwillconcludewithtwoshort
remarksonhowIwouldproposetodoso.
Itwasexpectedofmodernreasonthatitwouldleadtothetrulyhuman,
becauserational,conditionthroughknowledgeofbothnatureandsociety.However,
onceonehasthoughtthroughtheformalizingabstractionattherootofmodern
mathematics,itcanbeseenthatmodernreasonhasbecomeaformalpatterning
thatisdivorcedfromanygoalstiedtotherealizationofthehumanessence.Oneis
forcedtoreevaluatethepossibilitiesofgroundupreasoningabouthumangoals
apartfromformalreasonandenterthematerialreasoningcharacteristicofcultural
formations.23Inthissense,phenomenologypartswiththeprojectofmodernity,not
asformalreason,ortodenytheutilityofscientifictechnologicalreason,butto
embracethematerialreasoninherentinculturethatjustifiesparticularhuman
arrangementsandgoals.Second,thephenomenologicalaccountofthe
mathematizationofthelifeworldbyGalileanscienceallowsadistinctionbetween
whatwehaveheretoforecalledtraditionandtheexperiencedlifeworld.The
practicalcontextofthelifeworldwashiddenundertraditionpriortomodernity
becausethematerialprincipleunderwhichknowledgeandactionwereunified
producedaunified,theologicallybased,purportedlyuniversal,understandingofthe
worldwhatMaxSchelercalledarelativenaturalconceptionoftheworld.24Thus,
thephenomenologicalcritiqueofmodernreasonneedstobereconcilednotwith
traditionassuchbutwiththepracticalcontextofthelifeworld.25
Evenmentionedasquicklyasthis,onemayaskhowaresuchshiftsexpected
toaddresstheanxietyconcerningculturalhomogenizationandstageddifference.
Firstofall,itundercutsentirelythestillpervasiveandcorrosiveassumptionthat
modernityisthelocusofreasonandthatallotherlifeworldsarereasonpoorby
comparisonanassumptionthatismutedthoughnotrejectedbytheHegelian
vocabulary.Thecritiqueofformalreasonreinstatesthematerialreasonin
lifeworlds.Itdoesnotdosoinanexclusivistfashion,however,whichis
characteristicoftraditionwhichreliesonanoverarchingconceptionoftheworld.
Thelifeworld,ontheotherhand,isopentocompetingdefinitionsofhowitshould
beunderstoodandthuspromotessocialdebateonthegoodlifeinsofarasitcanbe
pursuedinagivencontext.Itisthisdebatewhichisnolongertraditionalbut
neitherisitmoderninthesenseofunalloyeddevotiontoformalreasonthat
undercutstheanxietyconcerninghomogenizationandstageddifference.Ifwecan
beliberatedoftheanxiety,wecanliveourconditioninitstragedyandpossibility,as
humanshavealwayslivedit,anddevoteourselvestopursuinghumanuniversality
fromwithintheopening,notconfinement,ofourparticularwayoflife.

14

Notes:

1Thus,akeyunderlyingissueofthispaperistherelationbetweenmodernityand

capitalism,anissuethathasbeendebatedinclassicalsocialtheorybetween
MarxistsandWeberians.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatbothsidesinthedebate
acknowledgearelationbetweenthetwoterms,sothatitisnotasimpleeither/or
thatisatissuebutquestionsofcausationandpredominance.Iwillnottakea
positiononthisdebateinthispaperbutrathertreatmodernityandcapitalismas
twodistinctbutinterrelatedphenomena.Thiswouldgroundapositionbeyondthis
classicdebateifitsimplicationsweretobesufficientlyworkedout.
2MaxWeber,FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology,trans.H.H.GerthandC.Wright
Mills(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1976)p.220.
3MaxWeber,TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism(NewYork:Charles
ScribnersSons,1958)p.13.
4Startingfromwhatweknow,fromourgeometryratherthantheolderhanded
downforms(suchasEuclideangeometry),thereisaninquiryback(Rckfrage)into
thesubmergedoriginalbeginningsofgeometryastheynecessarilymusthavebeen
intheirprimallyestablishing(urstiftende)function.EdmundHusserl,TheOrigin
ofGeometry,AppendixVItoTheCrisisofEuropeanSciencesandTranscendental
Phenomenology,trans.DavidCarr(Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1970)
p.354;EdmundHusserl,DieKrisisdereuropischenWissenschaftund
TranszendentalePhnomenologie,HusserlianaVI(Haag:MartinusNijhoff,1976)
BeilageIII,p.366
5Ibid,section16title(inbotheditions).
6TheOriginofGeometry,p.369.
7RenDescartes,RulesfortheDirectionoftheMind,trans.LaurenceJ.Lafleur
(Indianapolis:TheBobbsMerrillCompany,1961)p.3.
8FrancisBacon,NovumOrganum,includedinEdwinA.Burtt(ed.),TheEnglish
PhilosophersfromBacontoMill(NewYork:RandomHouse,1939)paragraphxxxi,p.
33.
9RenDescartes,DiscourseonMethod,trans.LaurenceJ.Lafleur(Indianapolis:The
BobbsMerrillCompany,1956)p.8.
10Ibid.
11Ibid,p.9.
12FrancisBacon,NovumOrganum,op.cit.,paragraphlxxxiv,p.58
13LudwigWittgenstein,PhilosophicalInvestigations,ThirdEdition,trans.G.E.M.
Anscombe(NewYork:MacMillanPublishing,1968)number18,p.8e.
14NoticethatIamnotsayingthattheidentityofEuropewasconstructedby
modernity.ThepriorelementsoftheGreekrationalanimalandtheselfdefinitionof
ChristendomasarelationtoGodprovidedanearlierbasisofunity.Butwiththerise
ofmodernitytheseweretransformedintoaunitybasedonscientifictechnological
reason,sothatEuropeanidentityinthemodernperiodisimbricatedwith,ornot
independentof,thehomogenizingtendencyofmodernity.

15

15KarlMarx,Capital,Vol1,trans.SamuelMooreandEdwardAveling(London:

LawrenceandWishart,1970)p.169.
16Iamactuallyskippingoveranimportantfactorhere,thatMarxcalledprimitive
accumulation,inordertofocusontheexpansionandexportofcapitalism.Butboth
priortoandcoincidentwithsuchexport,itwasnecessarytoconquerlandswho
wereoutsidethesphereofnascentcapitalismandappropriatepreexistingwealth
(i.e.plunder)toremovethepossibilityofsuchareasremainingindependent.Marx
givestheexampleoftheclearingofestatesinScotland.Thespoliationofthe
churchsproperty,thefraudulentalienationoftheStatedomains,therobberyofthe
commonlands,theusurpationoffeudalandclanproperty,anditstransformation
intomodernprivatepropertyundercircumstancesofrecklessterrorism,werejust
somanyidyllicmethodsofprimitiveaccumulation.Theyconqueredthefieldfor
capitalisticagriculture,madethesoilpartandparcelofcapital,andcreatedforthe
townindustriesthenecessarysupplyofafreeandoutlawedproletariat.Karl
Marx,Capital,Vol.1,pp.7323.Whilethosedispossessedinthisprocessdreamof
theirlandbecomingLondonorNewYork,inrealityitbecomeslikethatofHighland
Scotland.
17ThisdescriptionisderivedfromIanH.AngusandSutJhally,IntroductiontoIan
H.AngusandSutJhally(eds.),CulturalPoliticsinContemporaryAmerica(NewYork:
Routledge,1989)pp.116.
18Mydiscussionisoversimplifyinginonecrucialrespect.Idonotdistinguishhere
betweenmulticulturalismunderstoodasstatepolicy,socialrealityornormative
ideal.Ifonemakesthesedistinctionsthenthetwopositionsremainbutmaybe
complicatedconsiderably.Onemayclaim,forexample,thatmulticulturalpolicy
doesparticipateinthiscolonialheritage,whereasthesocialrealityisnotenclosed
withinit,andnormativeidealmaybetakenbeyondit.
19IanAngus,CulturalPluralityandDemocracy,InternationalJournalofCanadian
Studies,No.25,Spring2002,p.78.
20Slavojiek,Multiculturalism,OrtheCulturalLogicofMultinationalCapitalism,
NewLeftReview,N.225,SeptemberOctober1997.Downloadedon2February2009
fromhttp://www.newleftreview.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/?page=article&view=1919.
21SigmundFreud,CivilizationandItsDiscontents,trans.JoanRiviere(NewYork:
Dover,1994)p.42.ItisremarkablethatFreudsawthisphenomenonasa
convenientandrelativelyharmlessformofsatisfactionforaggressivetendencies.
However,whenhecomestoremarkontheservicethatJewshaverendered
civilizationinthisrespecthisironybecomespalpable.Ifsuchironywerepossiblein
1930,whenthiswaswritten,itwouldnothavebeensoevenafewshortyearslater.
22EdmundHusserl,TheCrisisofEuropeanSciencesandTranscendental
Phenomenology,p.124.
23Thissentenceadumbratesanargumentconcerningthenatureofmodern
mathematicsclarifiedbyJacobKleinwhoseconsequenceswerenotclearenoughto
HusserlandthereforerequiresaradicalrevisionofHusserlsexpectationthat
phenomenologycouldcurethecrisisoftheEuropeansciences.Ihaveexploredthis
aspectofacontemporaryphenomenologyinJacobKleinsRevisionofHusserls

16

Crisis:AContributiontotheTranscendentalHistoryofReificationPhilosophy
Today,Vol.49,No.5,2005.
24MaxScheler,DieWissenformenunddieGesellschaft,GesammelteWerke,Band8
(BernundMunchen:FranckeVerlag,1960)pp.603.SeealsoAlfredSchutz,
EqualityandtheMeaningStructureoftheSocialWorldinCollectedPapers,Vol.
II,ed.ArvidBrodersen.(TheHague:MartinusNijhoff)p.242andAlfredSchutz
andThomasLuckmann,TheStructuresoftheLifeWorld,trans.RichardM.Zanerand
H.TristramEngelhardt,Jr.(London:Heinemann,1974)p.8.
25ThisisakeyargumentofmyTechniqueandEnlightenment:LimitsofInstrumental
Reason(Washington:CentreforAdvancedResearchinPhenomenology&University
PressofAmerica,1984)especiallychapter6.