The Distorted Metaphoric Account of Endowing Societal Homogeneity
For centuries from the advent of Adam and Eve or the ascent of Homo sapiens, the modern human has been eagerly searching for ways to live in harmony with fellow species while maintaining his dominance and security. To attain such posture, over the centuries, he had to learn anew, yet a fundamental skill. A social skill that is not unique to humanity but sure is much more sophisticated in erect mammalian. Because human beings carry a trait unique for their own lineage, hence called “greed” or for those with religious commitments — “satanic.” Of course, by taking it into account, humans had to find that one collective common terra firma to endure and cherish the inherently self-deceptive needs or simply fight it within individual selves. Through generations, the contraption of consolidation, bundling of ideas, and profiling under commonly shared traits like race, color, geographic location, language, and religion became more attractive and stylish to modern humanity.
History, Politics, and Rhetorics in Defiance in support of the Melting Pot Marvel
As history shows us, furthering from the opportuneness of profiling oneself into a category that provided a common ground to organize solidarity, it was a choice to be taken at the disbursal of giving up the personal identity or individuality. By further strengthening their merger, the person took his Neo-ambitiousness to the next level by forming certain political groups, thus growing it to a larger scale and beyond their immediate and limited boundaries by developing societies, countries, and continents.
Humanity learned to take fundamental individual collaboration like group hunting and farming into a more sophisticated consolidation, including political parties and unions. As mentioned, to begin with, such unifications were associated with certain ideologies and rhetorical motives and consequently were subject to well-defined artificial variabilities.
Consolidations primarily were formed on innocent, idealistic notions like sports teams to the more aggressive political warfare games with potential motives for espionage. For example, most of us are familiar with the theory of Marxism which merely advocates the grandness of "class war."
As a class of communist doctrine, Marxism obviates through creating a society in which all property is state-owned. Within that space, each person works and earns according to their particular abilities, needs, and not inevitably based on their individual creativity and wants.
The Marxist theory contrasts with capitalism at the other end of the spectrum. The latter bases its notion on an economic and political system where a country's financial affairs and industry are controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state for societal welfare. Various degrees of Socialism have been practiced in history by many countries, each occupying a broad spectrum between capitalism and communism. Within the political rainbow, one can easily find people who believe in various degrees of establishing a social organization that upholds the construct that production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community.
Although pure communism and capitalism are merely non-existent from the 21st-century political stage, hybrid models with varying structures and leanings to one extreme or another exist, holding some level of consolidated publicity and ideology. It's, therefore, just to state that the full-fledged textbook scheme of capitalist policy is missing from the US political scene, even though the constitution points to support one. Indeed this reality is the primary cause of ideological conflict and a legislative malfunction in this country.
The major delineator between a society with individually sovereign citizens and extreme socialist governance is different from the variations in collaboration and consolidation. Realistic capitalism promotes collaborative efforts where communism feeds on consolidation.
For the consolidation to function, it would call for a robust populist stance from its individual elements. Populism is a political movement that strives to unite ordinary multitude with common interests who find their concerns disregarded by other established elite groups. Meaning, one consolidated radical is rising up against another faction. Infinite ways exist by which people can regroup based on their popular traits. It serves as the nidus for fascism and racism within a group and individual constituents within the brackets.
The theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over the collectively conceded principles, consolidation, or statehood is the habit or rationale of being independent or self-reliant. It reaches deep into the primary root of human nature as the notion of Individualism. For an individual to thrive, the capitalist scenario is commonly the preferred system. It respects free enterprise and smaller communities, setting some degree of social norms applicable while respectfully maximizing individual sovereignty.
Let us envision the mainstream group in a society or country that metaphorically resembles a melting pot. United mainstream collective attitude, expectations, entitlements would eventually dictate the rule of the land, where the newcomer must adapt to the already set values by society as a single unit. However, such a scenario can only be practical irrespective of opinions if the government has been granted full authority by its sovereign constitution.
In a capitalist system, the government's primary function is uttered by the people and for the people. Hence, given the high population diversity, a "melting pot" metaphor is just another rhetoric. It is, in fact, prone to recoil.
Diversity invites defiance of the Melting Pot analogy
The United States, in a social sense, is an overly diverse country. Therefore, it is a blunder as it is failure-prone if we persuasively yet unrelentingly attempt to homogenize that society. One may contend that the exemplifying European countries have lent themselves to the melting pot phenomenon within their societal systems. Even though due to mass immigration after the Second World War, European countries have become diverse, but still so by comparing them to the US, we would nevertheless be talking about something as different as apples and oranges!
European countries are often smaller, much-enduring in custom, they possess stiff cultural uniformity, strong populist attitudes, and most of all have potent socialized political cornerstone. The incorrect expectation from a mistaken system of rules with non-compatible constituent ideology ultimately results in any country's sociopolitical constancy.
Melting pot slant is munificently used out of context by the politicians. For decades it has served the political left's purpose supporting their mission of antiracist magniloquence. The far-right constitutional theory rationalizes the in-migration from its individual rights irrespective of the profile they may symbolize. Even though politicians may attempt to apply diversity as racially painted political rhetoric, realistically, individuals are just as diverse as their own unique traits.
Some politicians encourage immigration with the hope of creating a homogeneous melting pot by dictating popular yet minority values as the chosen attitudes. They merely intend to establish it through mass immigration, assuming that most immigrants are emigrated from countries with relatively left-wing ideologies and would be easily swayed to adapt to the new homeland as it was given to them! Other extreme contests do not want to change the melting pot hoping to avoid losing its majority status to a greater extent diverse society.
Both have problems!
In the bulk of the cases, an immigrant can adapt to the uniformity of the harboring country. But then again, what if that country is diverse, to begin with! — Where there is no single well-defined choice to adapt?!
In a profoundly vast and diverse society, unifying citizens based on the set of given values shared by common minority groups is a voiceless undertaking.
The prerequisite for the melting pot phenomenon is the uniformity of the country itself, beginning with the moral excellence of the unifying trait among the majority radical in the destination country. Diversity or uniformity- neither of the extreme notions is envisioned to be idealistic. It makes one the preferred alternative over the other is their utility within a given specific set circumstance.
Immigrants migrating into countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have comparatively uniform widespread citizenry while holding well-defined social populist structures to conform. The small community social melting pot implementation is much easier. This scenario would likely flunk practical application in a nation as diverse as the United States. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the significance of building and respecting the value of small communities as the metaphorical societal melting pot in this country.
In the US, attempting to implement populism would result in more polarity like oil-water mix phenomena and thus trigger prejudice. The common idealistic traits are the Political rhetoric of the politicians.
In a society with a sizeable inhomogeneous population, breaking up the population into smaller communities as possible where they're independently able to set their values to work would potentially enhance social harmony and adaptive attitude. Subsequently, connecting the communities and groups for their collaborative talents as single uniqueness rather than collective commonality would further strengthen their motivation to work towards a better society.
Citizens are as diverse as their individual uniqueness and as possessive as their shared traits. Thus, to make the world a better place, we must embrace diversity within the framework of the person's essence as a soul. The diversity of profiles like color, race, religion, or culture or feature any individual identified with and the diversifying characters between two persons. Anything short of accepting individual distinction is the prerequisite to fascism and racism. I strongly evoke empowering individuals, not the common trait shared by the commoner.