The Regressive Left Multiculturalism

What happens when the definition of immigrants overlaps the definition of the Regressive Left Multiculturalism.

The term "regressive left" was coined by Maajid Nawaz, a counter extremism activists based in the UK who also happens to be a person of colour, a Muslim and often get accused of being a lapdog for Western imperialist interests.

How far the concept of "other cultures" and "respecting differences" can go in our pursuit of tolerance? Why there is an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry within minority communities? Why some people (regressive left) are able to tolerate illiberal principles and ideology under the liberal principle of multiculturalism?

The idea that Muslims cannot cope with criticism of Islam and only respond violently patronises the very Muslims it claims to serve. It does not expect them to be civil and control their anger. This "soft racism of low expectations" allows to lower the moral standards of people in minorities, seeking excuses when they express misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or antisemitism, while holding the majority to the universal liberal standards.

When we refuse to accept that there are universal human values and every value that come geographically from Western societies is taken as Western regardless, we ought to ask ourselves if such posturing comes from proven arguments or from our general sentiment and chronic resistance to believe in universal human values, specifically if they come from the "West."

In which case, transparency become relevant if what we are holding underneath is an ideological relativistic view for certain things, people, countries and beliefs, but not for others.

Multiculturalism can be, among many other things, either the clash or the dance of many universal human values, but to assume that everything that comes from each culture is quantifiably universal per se is to misunderstand the tension and interrelations between the universal, the particular and the local traits of human values from those cultures.

Cultural diversity is not precisely to let a monkey type in a typewriter to infinity until eventually it finally writes the Bible, the Quran or the complete work of Shakespeare.

Cultural diversity is to let the best of each culture emerge as each cultural exchange is met with great deal of clutter and smoking mirrors. "To let," no doubt, is faced with many gradients of hostilities, but also with many gradients of embracement and play host/hostess to one another.

If the metaphor of the monkey and the typewriter is played right, and this by no means is to the detriment of monkeys' social skills, we cannot count every random typing as a proof that the monkey is approaching the above mentioned targets. Only when we witness universal patterns emerging is that we could venture into some predictions.

Cultures do have universal patterns of convergence, but they also have universal patterns of divergence. Yet, since these patterns exist in historical gradients those gradients can interact from their extremes or not, but nothing tells us that they wouldn't be able to merge to some extend if they keep cohabiting.

When cells were out and about as unicellular bio-entities they venture into a long journey, not predicted to be a successful one and, in fact, it failed many times over, to group and evolve to form organisms. Luckily we have them all organised within us and keeping us alive as a melting pot of diverse "cultures" with universal values like that of the ego, consciousness, individuality and the likes.

All cultures, in a way, exists as "organisms" and here the relations between the metaphor and the literal are interwoven even when they are not the same. Organisms are not perfect, they catch diseases, parasites, they are full of good and bad bacterias and yet there are ways for them to thrive for the best in them.

In humans, this biodiversity of their bodies has another layer of complexity, not beyond the biological, but acting as a much more complex manifestation of our biological makeup.

Multiculturalism, in this case, is the manifestation of bio-spiritual connections and tensions among cultures. Spiritual, in this context, means that humans interrelate via arrays of complex tapestries of signs, be them languages, pictorial representations or human heritage via all sort of technologies.

To favour multiculturalism is not to be more tolerant with certain type of parasitical behaviour from minority groups than with bigger groups' parasitical behaviours just because that's the way minority groups are or that is their "culture."

We might be more tolerant with certain animals aggression when we have them under control and we know that animals are not to blame since animals have different ethos embedded in their behaviours. Yet, we cannot treat another human culture as we treat certain animals aggression for having been bartered and abused.

An abused person or minority still have social responsibilities with its social habitat not less than those people who might be more in tune with the mainstream value of the multicultural enclosure in which both, minority and mainstream groups cohabit.

When minority groups come geographically from another culture into another country, they not necessarily represent the best values of their cultures nor such values are monolithic.

Only the lack of solid beliefs in human universal values or feeling shameful about them could cause to a social dominant group to rally in favour of tolerance for behaviours which are by the same dominant group unacceptable in those who are not part of minority groups.

A rogue animal can develop a permanent state of aggression at the slightest proximity of any human and yet we know that if left to their own devices in the wild animals rarely manifest rogue behaviours. Most animals rogue behaviours are caused by humans. When we have the option to show compassion to animals even if they are aggressive or rogue to us is because we know that their own wild balanced states have been broken.

The intend to reestablish a rogue animal to its wilderness does not aim to "lobotomise" their behaviours or to pet them into a human enclosure, but rather to let their natural wild ethos to flourish back again. Those rogue animals have their own universal-individual wild ethos, which through some universal-local gradients (human abuse or gene defect) have turned them into rogue animals.

In a pack of wolves we usually see alpha, beta and omega roles and yet the omega wolf as the lowest in the pecking order is rarely identified as a rogue wolf since being omega in the pack serves as an equaliser of the pack well being. A wolf that is found with rogue behaviour, be it because of gene defect or human abuse, would be expelled from the pack.

In the natural world, away from humans, rogue behaviours and genetic anomalies stand a very slim chance of survival, but in some cases it does help survival, like in the case of some stallion horses using particularly aggressive behaviours either to protect the harem again predators, to compete against other stallions or to drive their juvenile offsprings out of the harem to avoid inbreeding.

In human societies the treatment towards rogue behaviours varies great deal. We have rogue states, term which has been used mainly by US to describe political system like those in Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Iraq.

Rogue behaviours can also be attributed to individual human behaviours. In that sense, we have a variety of human rogue behaviours generated either by the peculiarities of certain social conditions (rogue traders, terrorists, extremists, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc) or genetic and brain defects, which might cause in some people being isolated, marginalised or in general feel overtly rejected by the mainstream values of any given society without them having necessarily any aggressive behaviour.

In agriculture, there is a process called detasseling, which from different angles of analysis could shed some light into the understanding of rogue behaviours in human societies.

Corn plants naturally self pollinate. So, they are both, female and male. However, farmers usually employ a form of pollination control in order to cross-breed, or hybridise two varieties of corn to get a better harvest.

Detasseling is the process of removing the pollen-producing flowers, the tassel, from the top of one type of corn plants and placing them on the ground.

For instance, in the field farmers can detassel four to six rows, leaving one row of a different type of corn with the tassels. The rows left with the tassels would be the males acting as the pollinators, while the ones detasseled would act as the females being pollinated.

For the whole process to be completed farmers need to also carry out a process called roguing. It refers to the act of identifying and removing plants with undesirable characteristics. Rogues are removed from the fields to preserve the quality of the crop. The plants being removed may be diseased, be of an unwanted variety, or undesirable for other reasons.

What exactly could we learn from both, the detasseling and the roguing in corn plants, which might help to the current understanding of multiculturalism?

First, hybridisation among humans, either of races or of cultures, is not as straightforward as it is with corn plants. The success rate of multiculturalism in Western societies regarding those societies being able to stabilise cultural differences is probably similar to the success mating rate of the red sided garter snakes of California, which is actually quite high.

Yet, even when the snake metaphor does come any closer to the fabric of our human DNA, it might help to understand how for millennia some biological processes continue to be mirrored in more complex ways in the social tapestry of our human interactions.

After a long winter of hibernation, when the spring arrives, red sided garter snakes emerge in huge numbers and immediately start to have sex. 98% of these snakes are males and they have a very unusual way to find the females in all the confusion.

They rely on smell to locate their mates, but smell in this case is rather deceiving. Nearly 50% of the horny males that most males are trying to seduce are also males. They smell like females but underneath the heavy perfume they are all males.

The deceit is a clever sexual strategy. In the frenzy of the mating ball the feminine scent they exude diverts the attention of their males competitors leading them down a blind alley.

As things get more hectic they get more confusing. The disguise is so good that where the transvestites are operating real females are ignored. So the she-males can get closer to the real females. Yet not all garter snakes are suited to transvestism.

To keep the illusion going a committed transvestite is forced to spend valuable time fending off hordes of over exited males. Then, while male versus male competition create this transvestite role playing it also places a limit on its value.

The effectiveness of cultural hybridisation in multicultural countries has the same chance of success of that of male red sided garter snakes chances of mating with their female counterparts.

There is not only great deal of "transvestite role playing" practiced as much by many sectors of the mainstream as by many sectors of minority groups, but there are also true "matings" from either sides of the cultural spectrum.

Yet, we might ask, what exactly could we possibly call true "matings" when human different cultures often seem as if we were dealing with different "species" of humans within the human specie?

To understand these true "matings" we have to look back to the heritage of our cultures and see how each of them is a melting pot of many diverse written and verbal traditions.

The most divergent cultures can find in their own standing traditions points and even long periods of convergence. Yet, time is not always a healer. Old wounds can be open even when old scars can be gone. New wounds can be inflicted, connections with our own traditions can be lost and we could alway cherry pick and hijack elements of our own culture to promote marginal and rogue aspects of it while we might present or view the rogue elements as a universal aspect of it.

The universality of each culture has both, diachronic and synchronic unfolding. In other words, the multiplicity of cultures can each be traced back to a handful of common sources (similar to the way evolutionary biologists approach the problem of the multiplicity of species). This would be the diachronic approach. We could also take a snapshot of human culture at a particular time and get a freeze-frame of it. This would be the synchronic approach.

If we privilege the synchronic over the diachronic and the synchronic elements that we privilege are those of relentless divergence we might get the worst extremist values of that culture, hungry for retribution and violence.

If we privilege the diachronic over the synchronic and the diachronic elements that we privilege are those of relentless convergence we might get the worst regressive liberal, laissez-faire values of that culture, tolerating minorities' rogue behaviours, but being intolerant towards the same behaviours from mainstream groups.

For the true "mating's hybridisation" of cultures to be able to bring betterment to all those cultures cohabiting in the same city or country enclosure we can't carry on believing that all universal values can be relativised and simultaneously expect that our own values would stand as absolute.

Hybridisation can happen, just like with corn plants. Yet, we all have to be able to bring the best from each of our culture. When the best comes to the fore, even through the struggle that it always ensues, hybridisation for the betterment of all becomes such a reality that we might actually need to refrain a bit from the hyped enthusiasm it might bring along.

Weren't the Romans such hybrid melting pot of cultures? Isn't US and Europe too? It is in the nature of all empire to hybridise and cause along that path many unwanted outcomes.

We could see how the unwanted outcomes can relate back to the roguing process applied to corn plants. Obviously, hybridisation of human cultures has not the same chances of success as those of detasseling corn plants. In human societies and cultures, roguing not necessarily and not always has followed the same principles of roguing in corn plants.

Roguing in humans is not exclusively nor predominantly about identifying and getting rid of humans or cultures with undesirable characteristics, even when in some instances, it has been the case.

Roguing in humans, if we wanted to create better outcomes and results for those involved, is about identifying the gradients of rogue human behaviours for what they are, namely, anomalies, which might or might not manifest in pure aggression. Yet, some gradients of rogue human behaviours can be the forerunners of new paradigms, trends or better ways of doing things.

However, human rogue behaviours either caused by genetic anomalies or by inflicted abuses do not grant in themselves privileges to those affected. Privileges in societies are not prescribed as a reaction to the shaming inflicted upon minority groups, be them a race, a gender, a disabled or a fat person.

Privileges in societies are neither prescribed as a reaction to the adulation bestowed upon mainstream groups, be them white, male, fit or slim.

To accept the different or advocate for differences among humans is not about taking a race, a gender, a genetic oddity, a fat or a disabled person as a role model or blueprint that could create breakthroughs and bring us all together in mutual understanding.

To accept the different or advocate for differences among humans is neither to reinforce being white, male, fit or slim or "step out" of your race, your gender, your fitness, your genetic normality to comply with the "blueprint" of an abused race, gender or a disabled person.

We can take many different things and people as role model, but it ends up in pure nonsense when we take either race, gender or default body shapes as role models when their definition per se is not base on outstanding effort, discipline and balanced life.

What can bring us together in our differences by way of hybridisation is not our emphasis on a race, a gender or a particular genetic difference. Race, gender and genetic are not true differentiators among humans for recasting or reshaping their shared universal qualities.

Productive and creative differentiators are those that initially might look rogue, continually might appear rogue, but at their core eventually they surface as the creators of new paradigms, new trends, new blueprints and better ways of living for most of us.

Those rogue look-like elements are not defined by race, gender, sexual orientation or genetic fitness. Those rogue look-like elements are defined by the ways they add value to many people's lives regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or genetic fitness.

Then, it seems that roguing in humans might have far more benefits than it has in corn plants. In corns roguing is exclusively done with the sole purpose of removing plants with undesirable characteristics. Contrastingly, roguing in humans might also include the search for desirable gradients of rogue behaviours.

However, we are facing two mayor problems in here and both come from science. One is related to software engineering and the other one to theoretical science or, to be more precise, to lab-tested science trying its luck in the "outdoors" of scientific speculation.

Currently, some business companies are creating Rogue Behaviour Detection Applications for both, detecting unwanted and desirable rogue behaviours either in their employees or in consumers. Anomalies are not always bad or indicative of a failure. For example, detecting a subtle change in consumers buying habits could provide an opportunity to discover a new trend.

The problem with software is that they only do what you tell them to do and what you tell them to do will search for the things you want in a vast arrays of expected places already programmed by known agents. One has to keep feeding the algorithms with new data if one is searching for thinking "out of the box" patterns.

However, roguing in humans implies giving freedom and autonomy to those agents, exactly in the same way freedom is granted to humans to come up with gradients of rogue behaviours, which could reshape our thinking and our reality in new ways. Yet, giving such freedom to software can open a new Pandora's box of unknown and unpredictable outcomes.

We should be wary of Rogue Behaviour Detection Applications, not as much because we might finally reach the point of granting them relative absolute freedom, but because we might wrongly assume they are becoming dead-on accurate.

The other problem that roguing with humans brings is connected to Epigenetic. Epigenetic refers to heritable changes in gene expression that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence. In other words, changes in phenotype without changes in genotype.

At the epigenetic level our genes day by day are in a conversation with our surroundings. Some genes are switched on and some are switched off. All these genes activation depends great deal in our environment and the way we frame our experiences in it. So far so good.

Steve Cole, a Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences in the UCLA School of Medicine, tells us regarding epigenetic:

"A cell is a machine for turning experience into biology.”

In another of his statements Steve Cole rushes with enthusiasm to even go into a more speculative statement:

"Your subjective experience carries more power than your objective situation."

I wouldn't object to Cole's first statement, but in his second one he kind of missed the mark and without noticing has gone into the real of scientific speculation. He would still need further proofs of the "subjective experience" carrying more power that the objective situation when the subjective experience alway keeps retroactively feeding from the objective situation.

There is here an inter-relational power exchange between the subjective experience and the objective situation. When one carries more power is just because it keeps relying on the other one's strength to do so.

Cole's merit is still valid, but in some points he missed his mark and slightly falls into a sort of scientifically oiled subjectivism. Science just needs to watch out for these ideological outbreaks natural to it.

Going from turning experience into biology to the idea of your subjective experience carrying more power than your objective situation, wouldn't make it so hard to phantom how all that can also lead to the power of mind over matter, including the already worn out idea of everything being a "social construct" and all the corresponding postmodern mumbo-jumbo that is known in the fields of humanities.

Scientific research, specially when it steps into theoretical science has to be kept in check of rushing into philosophical speculations. It often brings collateral damages to scientific postulates even as it originates from genuine tested scientific results that contribute to the advancement of science and knowledge in general.

Understanding the interconnection between epigenetic and cultures might help us understand how the "tolerant" double standards behaviours of the regressive political left towards minority's groups undesirable rogue behaviours has a detrimental feedback loop impact on equally undesirable rogue behaviours from mainstream groups.

In which case, the stimulation of desirable positive rogue behaviours across the multicultural spectrum is cancelled out due to excessive political correctness contrasted with outbreaks of freedom of speech banning within the very democratic society that promotes it.

Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights. Friedrich Hegel.