Challenges to nation-state

CHALLENGES TO NATION-STATE

Before entering to run the specific thesis of each writer, I find it accurate to identify the area in which they can all be situated for us get into a logic sequence. In that matter, both Koopmans and Mann get into a particular discussion of the matters of multiculturalism. Indeed, they seem to acknowledge and admit the complexity of the subject. They don’t pretendto take out importance of controversial sides such as the social and the economic implications within this topic. Nonetheless, they argue that none of them hold, in fact, that much relevance when they’re compared to a much bigger structure- as Koopmans says. More precisely, it can be said that issues such as identity crises (social area), on one side, or migrant poverty levels (economic side), inthe other, are subordinate to this wider force that produces them: the political side of multiculturalism. Under this logic, the main connection between all three texts is that all of them seem to see multiculturalism as a highly dramatic and real complex subject. Hence, they agree to accept the existence of a diversity of spheres within. Among all of them the political arena, according to thesewriters, is the one setting up the rules and the one in charge of constructing the reality in which social and economic issues are more likely to be born into. As Koopmans says, the particular context of multiculturalism is going to take roots and, later, grow inside a specific “Institutional and discursive opportunity structure” (KOOPMANS: 2003). Hence, these theses are looking to demonstratereality not as a group of independents factors which collide in a particular point to build up a structure based on them. On the contrary, these so - called factors would be after all subordinate to a pre-existing main structure who decides in the shadows who is going to see surface of reality and who’s not. Here, I completely disagree with the authors. I find in their theses (particularly inKoopmans’ work) a huge weight of what I would simply call a sense of pure determinism. Under that understanding, actors don’t have a single taste of independence. They show, in my opinion a depressive view of multiculturalism which gives no room for any progressive action and finish by stealing both the slightest notion of freedom and forgetting about the human natural ability –will- to modify reality. Ifwe hold to this last point, we may be able to understand exactly why social sciences are essentially meant to be taken apart from the exactitude that natural science holds: neither law nor an inherent condition can guide human behavior. In consequence, a theoretical framework who believes in structures is condemned to miss essential topics and, therefore, create a dark side within democracy, forinstance. We can give also a look to Bordieu’s structure slavery to argue that is impossible to assume that a mere disadvantaged structure can explain the reproduction of inequalities in school, and later, in a whole society. Bourdieu is unable to see how elite’s interests enter in contact with social class ability to adapt society. The latter adapt their reality by making a rational choice withintheir possibilities: cost and benefits analysis which leads them to pick a short-term education and, finally – in theory- to low social status. I don’t pretend to deny this last thing since it wouldn’t make any sense to deny one of the most obvious things. Nevertheless, I would like to point to those “little exemptions” that escaped the structure and are now inside a not so unequal status face toelites. Briefly, my whole point is that no pre-existing structure could ever be wide enough to frame multiculturalism. In my opinion, it’s not about the political spheres subordinating and constructing reality but the other way around. Furthermore, I see in economics motivations a huge capacity to subordinate the others arenas. As elites and mass population make a calculation of their interest...