Menand bases his claim – that America (and the developed world generally) is becoming less rather than more culturally diverse – on observations about advanced capitalism as well as demographic data. According to Menand, echoing a line of thought familiar to Marxists, capitalism tends to bring cultures together, and to make everyone culturally similar, not different – but (and here’s the rub) without thereby making society more just or improving people’s lives.

I think this last point is much underrated, and has important implications for multicultural education. Menand argues that people who advocate multiculturalism often do not give sufficient emphasis to issues of social class and distribution of wealth. His view is that the most important issues are economic – issues of class, not culture. So-called "mainstream" American culture reflects the relative affluence and power of white, straight, men of property, while female and minority cultures mirror the relative poverty and powerlessness of these "other" Americans. The truth is, I think, that America is becoming more divided in terms of economic class, and the class differences seem intractable and growing. But class isn’t the same thing as culture. So advocating cultural diversity isn’t going to halt the class war; it is a red herring.

"The real change in the United States in the past twenty years has been economic: the gap in income between the top and bottom fifths of the population (measured by wealth) now resembles a canyon. This financial difference fragments a society like the United States, with its worship of the privileges of private ownership, far more effectively than any cultural difference. Since members of racial minorities are more likely to be in the lowest quantile economically, the result has been a great deal of demographic distortion: the populations of many large cities, for example, are now non-white in hugely disproportionate numbers.

"It seems to me to be pure obfuscation to try to explain this economic ghettoizing in the language of "diversity". It is the consequence of many years of bad public policy, and has nothing to do with whether or not non-Europeans are acculturated to "linear thinking" or respect for the nuclear family."

Menand continues: "Insofar as "multiculturalism" means genuine diversity — insofar as it refers to functionally autonomous subcultures within a dominant culture, or to conflicting tastes and values specifically associated with ethnicity, gender, and sexual preference — the United States is becoming not more multicultural but less."

I shall argue here, then, that issues of economics are as important, if not more important, than attitudes of racism or sexism, to a deep understanding of the import of multiculturalism; and that too often, these economic factors are overlooked or underestimated. I hope now to clarify the economic factors that seem relevant to me, and give voice to some of my consequent concerns about multicultural education in general, where the current debates seem to be situated, and where I think they ought to be situated. I agree with Menand that consumer culture tends to make people culturally alike, and at the same time maintain unjust class divisions, i.e., consumer culture leaves the real problems intact. Nobody escapes the incessant influence of consumer culture. And so I wonder, what exactly will be accomplished by emphasizing cultural differences — "multicultural education" as it is often construed — in the absence of any deep analysis of the "natural history" of culture itself?

Marx says that culture is the "superstructure" of society; it is a manifestation of a substructure that is essentially economic. Those who own the means of production control the culture. Commerce determines customs, art, religion, morality, philosophy. (I think this is an oversimplification — as I shall argue below, I think culture also reflects "human nature" — but it is undeniable that economic realities have an enormous effect on culture.) Marxists say that "mainstream" American culture today is the one defined by capitalism to advance its interests. Thus we find "mainstream" morality centered on the family (because the family is the main unit of consumption of big- ticket, high-profit items), organized religion (which urges alienated workers to be passive and resigned to their fate), and nationalism (because war is extremely profitable). According to Marxists, the commercial media (radio, TV, newspapers, films) are instrumental in maintaining these values, since the media are financed by corporate America.

Capitalism is basically a system in which some people win and others lose; the hope is that a free market will improve goods and services enough overall that no one is hurt very much by losing. The culture of women (if there is such a thing) is, on the feminist analysis, a culture of persons artificially and unfairly constrained and limited by their biological role. If women had been permitted full participation in cultural and economic life, they would have no reason to complain. As it is, they do. (I am not saying that capitalism is the only oppressor of women, because women were and are oppressed in non-capitalist societies, too; but capitalism, in its alliance with religion, is what we’re dealing with nowadays.) The history of African-Americans has been a history of heinous oppression and exploitation, fueled by economic motives, particularly the desire for cheap labor, unscrupulously attained. African-American culture is marked indelibly by that history. The many cultures of Hispanic Americans and Native Americans share a similar theme of unfair constraint and limitation. The cultures we emphasize in multiculturalism are the cultures of historically oppressed peoples. Everyone on both sides of the multicultural education issue seems to agree about this fact.

Thus, the "mainstream" culture does not serve the economic interests of many people; indeed, it has historically been extremely unjust to large groups, especially non-whites and women. People who maintain the importance of cultural diversity are, it seems to me, motivated by laudable impulses toward social justice. They argue that people of the mainstream culture must understand and accept those on the outside, because lack of understanding and acceptance fosters irrational and unfair prejudices, such as racism and sexism, and these prejudices do harm to those outside the mainstream. The harm is multi-pronged – economic, social, and psychological. In addition, the mainstream culture, in maintaining irrational prejudice, deprives itself of many excellent benefits that it might derive from more intimate interaction with non-mainstream cultures. So far, so good; there is no question about any of this. Proponents of multicultural education thus propose that non-mainstream cultures be valued and, whenever possible and desirable, their traditions preserved.

But if social justice is the goal, then let’s not lose sight of it. Economic justice is fundamental to the attainment of social justice. Multiculturalists acknowledge that capitalism has historically profited from racism and sexism; they are aware of imperialism and how it encouraged racist and sexist attitudes and practices for the sake of continued profit. But their analysis stops there; they do not include an account of contemporary capitalist consumer culture and its effect on the struggle. If the Marxists are right, racism and sexism are simply ideologies grounded in economic realities; as such, they can flourish or diminish through the operation of economic forces.

Times have changed, and so has capitalism. Nowadays, most corporate executives oppose racism and sexism, at least in public pronouncements. They talk in moral terms, defending equality and universal human rights. And while some of this morality talk may be sincere, there is little reason to suppose capitalists’ profit motive has changed. The world has gotten smaller, everyone knows about the ideals of equality and human rights, and no corporation will make the fatal public relations mistake of espousing racism or sexism. Besides, the executives are telling the truth, in a way. Capitalism itself (and the consumer culture it has created) isn’t inherently racist or sexist. If racism and sexism will make profit, then they’re fine; if not, they’re bad. If women make better managers than men (and thus help make the corporation more profitable), then capitalists will promote women to management. If creating an image of racial and cultural homogeneity makes more profit, then corporations will sponsor Father Knows Best; but if more profit can be made by emphasizing racial and cultural diversity, they sponsor In Living Color.

But it is seldom appreciated that capitalism tends to exploit cultural differences for profit, and by doing so, tends to dilute, neutralize, and negate non-mainstream cultures. Capitalist consumer culture cares about profit; it cares about creating and maintaining markets for "new" products, so that people will feel dissatisfied with their current stuff, throw it out, and buy new stuff. Capitalism doesn’t care about race or ethnicity or gender or sexual preference; in fact, it exploits both the attractive and unattractive aspects of underclass or minority culture for novelty in the marketplace. It feeds on minority and underclass culture, glamorizing it, ingesting its exotic flavors, dissolving all its potentially threatening aspects. As a matter of standard practice, it co-opts and usurps the exotic, marginal, and even threatening aspects of minority culture in order to make profit; the exotic becomes the "new", i.e., new products, new fashions, new teen idols. "Nothing takes the edge off a challenge to the established order than making it the premise of a situation comedy."

Even more significant is that capitalism can do all this while enlisting the voluntary cooperation of the very cultures being exploited. Inasmuch as capitalism influences style and corrupts desire, minority culture, desiring what capitalism has to offer, often offers itself up to be consumed. These observations are nothing new to sociologists or Marxists; Marxists call the process "cultural imperialism". Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man is the classic recent expression of this line of analysis.

What is new is the unprecedented influence of professional image-makers on popular culture. Contemporary consumer culture features the systematic construction of images of all kinds; "advertising" or "commercials" are only a small part of the package. Practically all of mainstream television is advertising in one form or another: what the characters wear, eat, and drive, as well as how their houses are furnished, are all carefully chosen, and certainly send as many messages as what the characters say. The fashion and cosmetics industries iconize images of beauty, which change regularly in response to market forces (as they lose their power to arouse), and which serve to encourage the contemplation of more exotic objects of desire, encouraging the intermarriage that further dilutes racial diversity. It seemed that every young man in America was in love with Asian women after Shogun. Think of the images that flood magazines and television and political advertisements nowadays. It seems clear, to me, that great care is taken to include representatives of diverse races and ethnic groups, i.e., capitalist consumer culture wants to sell to everyone.

Members of minority cultures, and disaffected youth of the mainstream culture, can buy rap CDs, manufactured by the pop music establishment, that urge them to kill white policemen. Capitalism has found the ideal way to "neutralize" the legitimate rage of these youth. Ice T now speaks for them (they do not need to speak for themselves). They can dress like him, thus supporting the fashion establishment. They can drink his brand of beer, and wear his brand of athletic shoes. They can wear Malcolm X caps. They voluntarily spend their money in ways guaranteed to make profit for someone else, thus impoverishing themselves and reinforcing the gap between the economic classes. Capitalism, meanwhile, doesn’t have to worry that Ice T will say anything really radical (like " Let’s get rid of consumer culture"), because Ice T is becoming rich within the system. Madonna plays at being a "sexually liberated woman"; she co-opts the language of the women’s movement and gay liberation to make money for herself and for Time-Warner (the giant communications conglomerate to whom she is under contract for movies, CDs, and books). At the same time she reinforces the traditional fantasy of woman as sex object, thus making it more difficult in the long run for women, especially older women, to be heard. Benetton ads show homosexual AIDS victims dying in the arms of their parents. The scandalous music of 25 years ago (the Doors’ " Light My Fire", the Beatles "Revolution") now sells cars. Malcolm X becomes a Hollywood icon. Coca-Cola co-opts the religious language of universal brotherhood and sisterhood (people of all ages, colors, and costumes holding hands, walking forward through the meadow into the future together sharing Cokes) while making huge profits from the sale of sugared water that rots the teeth of children in countries where there is no dental care. And no one is forcing them to buy Coke.

As minority cultures of all kinds are mainstreamed, the majority culture itself changes, which in turn fertilizes changes in minority tastes and buying habits. Marketing strategies are narrowed to maximize profits, which often means maintaining and perpetuating economic class differences, now chosen more or less voluntarily by the economically already-oppressed, who willingly fork over their hard-earned money for Nikes and Coke and Madonna CDs. No really radical statements are ever widely heard or, if heard, understood; and we can hardly expect to hear any enlightenment from the mainstream media. Who are the sponsors after all? "The more the marginal, the exotic, and the new become central to the culture, the more everything begins to send the same messages." Even de Tocqueville noticed this. Given capitalism’s tendency to overwhelm indigenous cultures, the more I emphasize my difference, the more my difference is liable to be either marginalized or co-opted for profit. And the more my difference is exploited for profit – the more fashionable it becomes to be "different" – the more culturally alike we all become. Class distinctions, however, are maintained.

Capitalism has a stake in the maintenance of minority cultures’ difference as long as minority cultures can (safely, unthreateningly) furnish the exotic and new for sale, and as long as minorities furnish markets. This is how advanced capitalism works. But as minority cultures are assimilated, the majority culture becomes more and more like a can of mixed paint and less like a mosaic. Capitalism does not care whether or not consumers are uniform, as long as they are docile – since as long as they are docile, they will eventually become more and more uniform.

Thus, I am skeptical of the claim that West Valley students need classes in multiculturalism in order to combat attitudes of racism and sexism which are thought to perpetuate injustice. I want to be very clear about this: racism and sexism do help perpetuate injustice, and we should certainly strive to eradicate these attitudes wherever they exist. But they are perhaps merely symptoms of forces so large and all-pervasive that they become invisible, like air. Our students are, as we all know, TV children; and that exposure to TV images has both good and bad sides. One of the good elements is that TV and other media, as well as the K-12 classrooms themselves, have been much more diverse since the 1970s than previously. As a result, my students do not appear to harbor any serious racism or sexism.

I may be completely wrong; my students, after all, wouldn’t be likely to express racist or sexist views in front of me, since I am critical of such attitudes in class. On the other hand, I encourage my students to express controversial views, if only for the sake of argument. I have observed that my students are bored by racism and sexism as ethical issues; they are far more interested in talking about the environment. They consider racism and sexism to be utterly uncontroversial – the "old-fashioned" ethical issues of their parents’ generation. They are "beyond all that". And they have reason to feel that way: my students are already racially and ethnically diverse, and many have been in similarly diverse classrooms their whole lives. They already work (and fall in love) with people of other races and cultures.

On the whole, my students seem to be placidly cheerful children who try very hard to be fair and above all avoid saying anything negative about anybody (to a fault, I think). Very occasionally I hear an earnest well-intentioned comment like "My best friend in sixth grade was (white or black or Vietnamese or Hispanic) but it seemed like we couldn’t be friends anymore in high school".

My students do complain about high school cliques, but the complaints seem to have more to do the nature of cliques themselves than with any racial or ethnic nature of cliques. (Cliques seem a generic high-school problem.) A few students (whites and Asians particularly) also complain bitterly about affirmative action programs, which they perceive as working against them. But the complaints do not seem motivated by racism as much as by simple self-interest. These students are not stupid: like most people, they can see that affirmative action programs are fraught with ethical and practical dilemmas. So the students are always careful to preface their criticisms with caveats like, "Sure, everybody deserves an equal chance".

My students’ sexism seems to be more ingrained than racism – not surprising since TV sponsors rely on exploitative images of women to attract viewers and sell products; MTV is particularly repellent. But I think TV culture has done a good job teaching our students that racism, at least, is a bad thing.

The bad side of TV culture is that our students tend not to think critically about any of the images they absorb (worthy or unworthy), and particularly do not think critically about issues of class, or about values. Their world-views do not seem formed or coherent enough to harbor strong opinions of any kind, let alone attitudes of racism. Indeed, they do not appear to have "world-views" at all; ideas and attitudes do not appear to "stick". Although if you ask them, they will say that TV is "all lies", they nevertheless tend to accept unreflectively the TV picture of the world, in which mostly young, bland, physically attractive people with no serious commitments to religion, politics, or the life of the mind are all reasonably well-off. The primary goal of most of my students is to make enough money to buy the things those TV people all have, effortlessly, in the TV fantasy world. My students seem too busy to be seriously racist or sexist (or indeed to think much about anything at all). Their first loyalty is to the mall.

Furthermore, even if our students were both racist and viciously sexist, and a satisfactory multicultural curriculum were implemented, and that curriculum were completely successful in eradicating their racism and sexism, I am not sure that as long as consumerism rules, anybody would necessarily be any better off economically, socially, or psychologically. I also doubt that getting rid of racism and sexism would necessarily help create respect for indigenous cultures, or help them be preserved. As long as capitalism continues to operate as it does, cultural differences will disappear while unjust class differences remain. So like Menand, I am skeptical that economic justice (which I consider the absolutely fundamental pre-requisite for the attainment of social and psychological liberation) will be won simply by focusing on cultural diversity.

In summary, I have been describing racism and sexism as both the particular causes and long-term effects of economic forces, which are themselves morally indifferent. Powerful men of every race have feared, exploited, and belittled the less powerful – the most cursory analysis of world history reveals that exploitation was not invented, and was not solely perpetrated, by white men. And I think the less powerful are always feared not because they are of a different race or sex, but precisely because they are less powerful. Now that capitalism rules the world, and the former underclasses have buying power, the overt exploitation and belittling ceases. Most people at least pay lip service to ideals of equality and human rights. But the influence of persuasive images is stronger than it ever was.

I explain these matters in order to make clear my own perspective on the issue of cultural diversity in academia. It is vital to recognize the plures. But social justice and improved quality of life for all will not necessarily be achieved (or even helped) merely by emphasizing changes in personal attitudes, or by noting the exotic features of non-mainstream cultures. We must also ask how these attitudes and features came to be – for example, how racism and sexism serve to perpetuate the current economic status quo, or how the images put forth by corporate advertising, with their double messages (poverty is a shame, buy our product and stay poor), can be unmasked.

Perhaps proponents of multicultural education take for granted that the appropriate economic analysis will accompany instruction in multiculturalism; multiculturalists tend to be politically left of center, after all. Multiculturalism could be a powerful instrument in the indictment of consumer culture. But too often, I think, the case for multiculturalism is presented trivially, in the paranoid, oversimplified language of inflammatory accusation or reverse stereotyping (e.g., Elijah Mohammed’s "white devils" or Leonard Jeffries’ "people of ice") or the off-putting, often baffling rhetoric of victimization. Too often multiculturalism is defended with ethically and logically suspicious arguments like relativism and deconstructionism (more on these presently). Too often, inconvenient arguments and conclusions – e.g., that there may be a biological basis for xenophobia and sexism – are ignored, countered with simplistic name-calling (the sociobiologists must be "racist" or "sexist"), or uncritically embraced. More on this below.

I have given a critique, based on economics, of some presentations of multiculturalism. But I would like to make it clear that I am not advocating any particular alternative political or economic arrangement. Like many of my generation, I gave up on communism a long time ago. I am not saying that the basic ideas of capitalism are all bad; on the contrary, I do not know what economic system might be better (and I’ve thought about this a lot). If some people, by working harder or more thoughtfully, deserve to win, there is nothing inherently unjust about a market economy or social stratification – indeed, as both blacks and whites have argued, it is just to reward desert, and if desert if not rewarded, society is unjust. Besides, capitalism and contemporary consumer culture can and sometimes do work to improve the general well-being of everyone. And not just in obvious material ways, e.g., by rewarding people who genuinely do good (inventors of life-saving products, for example). Less obvious benefits but even more important long-term benefits include the generation and promulgation of worthwhile ideal images of freedom and human rights, with the implicit invitation to think critically about one’s own culture. For I do not think any culture, no matter how ancient or venerated, necessarily deserves to be cherished and preserved if it is clearly unjust or cruel to any persons; slavery, foot-binding, clitoridectomy, genocide, etc. have been enthusiastically sanctioned in many cultures, both Western and non-Western; but in my view they can never be ethically sanctioned, and the more people are exposed to the ideals of freedom and universal human rights, the better. To sum up, a market economy, at minimum, gives at least some persons the freedom to achieve all they can. It gives to all but the most disadvantaged citizens the ability to vote with their pocketbooks for corporations that are socially and ecologically responsible. And it provides worthwhile ideals of freedom and human rights that invite people to think critically about more repressive systems. For that reason, the more ardent defenders of capitalism argue that capitalism itself fights the good fight against racism and sexism: although capitalism inevitably produces winners and losers, at least the winners are chosen fairly, on the basis of their diligence, cleverness, etc., and not because of race or sex.

Well, that is the ideal, of course. But as a matter of fact, in practice, capitalism is essentially conservative: the rich, once they are rich, tend to be immune from the forces of the market. They stay rich; it is well-known that "the rich get richer". So, fair-minded people argue, we must make a "more level playing field". And I am simply arguing here that the more level playing field isn’t necessarily going to be created as long as people (men, women, white, non-white) keep mindlessly shopping. In fact, shopping keeps the field stratified.

I would like to mention an argument that, if successful, qualifies my conclusion somewhat. I sometimes hear that racism and sexism are far more important factors than a purely economic analysis (such as I have given) would indicate; even if we could fix the world economically, we would still find ourselves struggling with racism and sexism, because unfortunately those nasty traits are simply built in to human nature. So you can argue and fight all you want for equality and universal human rights and social justice, but racism and sexism will always be with us, because they are have a genetic basis.

For example, ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz argue that aggression and conflict are natural, especially among young males, who fight to impress females; in the process, evolution weeds out weaker males (thereby improving the gene pool) and ensures that couples, and later families, have sufficient living space. E. O. Wilson, in Sociobiology, points out that social animals who live in clans (like humans) are naturally xenophobic, preferring to consort with animals who bear a family resemblance to themselves, since they are more likely to find safety among their own kin. His theory of kin selection says that individual animals are far more likely to be altruistic on behalf of their kin than on behalf of unrelated animals. Kin selection makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view. If the overriding evolutionary goal is to get one’s genes passed on to the next generation, one might achieve that goal by simply having offspring oneself; but one might also achieve it by ensuring the safety of kin, who share one’s genes. So humans (of all races) will naturally feel safer among people who look like themselves, and will feel somewhat less secure among strangers. Hence there is nothing surprising about racism; as long as the races do not intermarry (blurring and blending the distinctive racial characteristics in the offspring), some xenophobia (of which racism is an example) is perfectly natural.

Furthermore, since evolution, for the sake of efficiency in some habitats, fosters division of labor in the rearing of offspring, and since females almost invariably are the primary care-givers, evolution equips females with a set of built- in interests and satisfactions quite different from those of males. Females are typically weaker than males, and by nature less interested in social power and position. Hence, the argument goes, human societies would probably run a lot better if we adhered to nature’s division of labor. Women should find satisfactions primarily in child-rearing, both for society’s sake and for their own sakes, since they will never be truly happy in any other role. And Wilson’s views give empirical support to the "natural law" style of moral argument, which is still defended vigorously by the Catholic Church and is enjoying a new popularity in theories of jurisprudence (Clarence Thomas is a famous recent adherent). According to Wilson, human behavior is heavily influenced by instincts – which express the natural law or "human nature" – whether we like it or not.

Biological-determinist arguments cannot be dismissed as easily as you might think. In the 1960s and 1970s, the ideas of Lorenz and Wilson were considered merely speculative. Although the ideas were very controversial in academia, the controversy was mostly "academic" and theoretical (philosophers participated in the discussion!). However plausible and elegant the theories might have appeared, technology did not yet exist to test them empirically. However, biotechnology exploded in the 1980s, and Wilson’s views on kin selection have apparently been widely confirmed. They certainly appear to throw cold water on liberal ideals of human perfectibility. I will not attempt to refute these ideas here. The usual dismissal takes the line that "Humans are different from animals, and you can’t make a generalization about humans on the basis of animal studies." But this response is less and less convincing to me, as I learn more about developments in sociobiology, genetics, psycho-pharmacology, and cognitive science.

There is a difficult philosophical question beneath the controversy about biological determination of behavior, namely, is there such a thing as "human nature" in the first place? Right-wing thinkers tend to see human nature as relatively fixed and dangerous; while the left has tended to view people as plastic, capable of being molded by society and environment, and morally perfectible. Humans are clearly not entirely plastic (at least at this point in the development of technology), so if there is such a thing as human nature, to what extent does human nature influence human behavior? What can we really expect from people? Where do we draw the line between determinism and personal responsibility? West Valley’s Philosophy 6 (Philosophy of the Person) treats these questions very seriously. The so-called "nature-nurture" problem in psychology is a modern formulation of the old philosophical question. I bring up the background philosophical and psychological question to illustrate that serious thinkers have given (and continue to give) strong arguments for some degree of biological determination of behavior. The opponent of racism and sexism cannot simply dismiss the arguments with ad hominem rhetoric.

I bring up these arguments to indicate the complexity of the issues we face: there are economic forces, which I have been emphasizing, but there may also be other, even more basic forces, and multiculturalists must demonstrate that they have thought seriously about these biological arguments. I think that multiculturalists must participate in the discussion and analysis of the biological arguments, and the deep philosophical questions they raise.

I think that multiculturalists are often justifiably wary of biological arguments because Nazis and other white racists have used them to justify racism. So some multiculturalists simply reject the arguments out of hand, refusing even to consider them. They offer no counter-argument, only name-calling. I think it would be better to acknowledge the arguments themselves without resorting to name-calling; for what do the biological arguments really show after all? Not that the goal of equality and universal human rights is impossible, but that the task is perhaps even more daunting than anyone had imagined.

On the other hand, some separatist feminists and multiculturalists seem to embrace the biological arguments. The separatists would like us to believe that the sexes or the races can never get along; that there is a "natural" warfare between the sexes and/or the races, so that the best solution is simply to stay away from one another. I hear undertones of this sort of biological determinism in the often-heard claim that all white people are racist (and all men are sexist) no matter what they say or do. Spokespersons for minorities or feminists often say this in liberal media like National Public Radio’s call-in program Talk of the Nation or our local equivalent Forum. I find this claim tiresome and absurd. Let me explain why.

I will first describe the typical radio exchange. The spokesperson claims that all whites are racist (or all men are sexist). A caller brings forward counterexamples – instances of white or male persons who evidence no racism or sexism, who in fact demonstrate exemplary, heroic adherence to principles of universal brother(sister)hood. The caller says, "Look at Mother Teresa, look at Wes Cummins, look at the white civil-rights workers murdered in the 60s, look at John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, and all those white Union men who died in the Civil War. Surely these counterexamples prove that not all white people are racist." But the spokespersons invariably discount every supposed counterexample. They reply, "Of course Wes (or Lincoln or whoever) is racist; he can’t help it, he’s a white man. Maybe he’s better than most, but he is racist in his heart of hearts, perhaps even subconsciously. Perhaps he doesn’t even know it."

There is a logical problem here. The spokespersons accept no counterexamples to the claim that all whites are racist. Any apparent counterexamples are automatically judged bogus, so the claim that all whites are racist becomes completely irrefutable. Philosophers always think twice (or three or four times) about claims that cannot be supported or refuted by any evidence whatsoever; they always ask whether anything substantive is really being asserted at all. Let’s not forget that no overt, empirical, intersubjective evidence whatsoever exists to support that claim that Wes is racist; all the overt empirical, intersubjectively verifiable evidence in fact points to the conclusion that he is not. Surely it is far more rational to assume Wes is not racist than that he is!

The defender of the "all white people are racist" line might now reply that a person does not have to exhibit racist behavior in order to be racist, i.e., a person might be racist even if s/he never behaves in a racist manner. For example, a white man might "feel uncomfortable" with non-whites (and vice-versa), even if his behavior is scrupulously fair. But surely any definition of "racism" that relies on speculation about subjective events is suspicious. Surely racism proper is a matter of behavior and thought, not feeling. And surely "feeling uncomfortable" is not the same thing as racism. Mere diffidence is not racism; perhaps I am simply shy. If I feel uncomfortable in a room full of non-white strangers, it doesn’t follow that I’d feel any more comfortable in a room full of white strangers. If I feel offended, I might simply be a victim of "equal opportunity" rudeness (some people are rude to everyone). "Feeling uncomfortable", " feeling offended", "feeling hurt" are not necessarily indications that a racial incident is occurring.

More importantly, if the definition of racism allows for a person to be racist even in the absence of any racist behavior, then there is no way to distinguish racist white people from non-racist ones. That is exactly the point, the separatist might reply triumphantly: all white people are racist, even if they never show it – that’s why there are no counterexamples. But the circularity of the definition should now be obvious. Why do you say all whites are racist? Because there are no counterexamples. And why are there no counterexamples? Because all whites are racist.

I think, then, that we ought to treat biological determinist arguments with some caution, since there are problems both with rejecting them outright and with embracing them uncritically.

Finally, as a moral philosopher, I would like to talk about values. Obviously capitalism, the biological arguments I have mentioned, and superficial "Christian values" are connected in interesting ways. All three world-views – capitalism, Darwinism and its children (ethology, sociobiology), and superficial Christianity – have historically been employed to reinforce each other, and to collectively mount an attack on naive egalitarianism. For example, a certain amount of aggression is supposed to help you succeed in capitalism, and what do you know, according to ethology, it’s natural too. According to ethology and sociobiology, male primates are "naturally" more aggressive than females, and that’s why according to naive Christianity, men should be the breadwinners. Men are "by nature" morally tougher and more emotionally stable than women, so only men should be priests. "Family values" are best, and what do you know, it’s also natural for a woman to want to take care of children, and it’s natural for people to prefer their own families over any other people. Evolution’s imperative is to produce as many offspring as possible, and what do you know, Catholics agree that birth control is " unnatural". Wars are "natural", of course, and can also be " holy". Territoriality (imperialism) is natural, profit-making, "civilizing", and soul-saving.

The bottom line in all these views is that there are winners and losers. Some people lose in capitalism, some individuals and species lose in evolution, and some people go to hell. Not everybody can win. Even if people start at the same gate (which is doubtful), they simply do not end up "equal" at the finish line.

Here is where I want to say something in defense of my cherished liberal ideals of "equal humanity", equal opportunity, and human perfectability given the right social conditions. I reject facile generalizations about human hierarchy: surely it is false that men are by nature superior to women, or that white people are by nature superior to non-whites or vice-versa.

But I cannot help thinking that intelligence is better than stupidity, beauty better than ugliness, able-bodiedness better than disability, strength better than weakness, virtue better than wickedness. And I can’t help but think people who exemplify excellences, especially moral excellences, "better" than people who don’t. Clearly, such an attitude – a "natural" attitude, I would say – is a denial of equality. Such an attitude is not " fair"; many people cannot help being ugly or ill, people are not responsible for their genes. Some people are luckier than others, in wealth or beauty or love or temperament. I even think there is such a thing as moral luck. Some people seem to experience fewer moral challenges, fewer temptations than others. People who have faced poverty, emotional deprivation, or abuse are often morally unlucky, because they are especially vulnerable to temptations to dishonesty, self- deception, and self-pity. Kant, Aristotle, and Sartre all argue this point at length.

Fair or not, all this seems true. Life is unfair. Beautiful people are worshipped, in all societies. Stronger, more cunning people win races and society’s prizes. So here is where I find myself stuck, and tending more and more to political incorrectness. For I find myself thinking that there is something to the notion of human hierarchy, too. The hierarchy isn’t based on race or sex; it seems based mostly on the luck of the evolutionary draw. The fact that some people are almost bound to lose is, I think, part of what people mean by intractable imperfectable "human nature".

Let me explain my position by a historical analogy. The main insight of Martin Luther was his claim that humans are sinful by nature and simply cannot ever become good enough to deserve heaven by their own efforts; they must trust entirely in God’s grace. Thus the fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the degree of importance given to "works" (good actions in the world). Catholics never stopped valuing works and continued to stress the importance of successful character-formation – the life of virtue achieved by one’s efforts of will, or, in a word, sainthood. Catholics do not view saints as people especially helped by God; the idea of sainthood is much more democratic – anyone can become a saint by striving hard enough. I think this is why Catholics tend to support more liberal solutions to social problems; Catholics are fundamentally more optimistic than Protestants about what humans can achieve through efforts of the will. In contrast, Protestantism of Luther’ s type is fundamentally skeptical about what humans can achieve without grace. Protestants don’t have saints. Hence for Protestants of the Lutheran tradition, works and success in character-formation assume a secondary role to "faith" or "grace" (what I would call "luck").

In a way, what I am saying here is that I have become more "Protestant" in my skepticism about what humans can achieve through efforts of the will. (This is not to say I have converted to Lutheranism, just that I agree with Luther’s observations about "human nature".) The notion of fixed, corruptible human nature – unfair and unequal, just as the Hindus say – makes me skeptical about my old utopian ideals. I simply no longer believe in the possibility of universal sainthood.

I find myself acknowledging more and more that life is unfair. We do seem to be born unequal. We don’t start from the same blocks, and we don’t all wear the same fetters.

Now, what follows from this? For me, not the Hindu or Platonic line about knowing one’s place and performing the duties of one’s station in life. I don’t think we can know someone else’s place. Free will – conditioned to be sure, but still something – is the wild card. People’s excellences often take me by surprise, and they are unrelated to race, sex, or social class. You simply can’t tell what a person might achieve, so you ought to give everyone a chance. So, I conclude we ought to try to level the material, economic playing field; after all, it’s the one we have most control over. We ought to fight for social justice. Maybe someday we can level the genetic playing field as well.

Yet suppose we’d done that. Would the game now be a tie? I don’ t think so, not necessarily. Genes are only the beginning, equal opportunity is only the beginning. People might still choose not to flourish. I am more and more of the view that in spite of material inequalities or inequalities of self-esteem (a much over-rated virtue, in my opinion), humans are equal in a large moral sense, over the span of a life. I think mature people are responsible for how they have played their hand morally and spiritually. I say this because of the common observation that after some point in life (and I don’t think we need to know exactly when), most people can’t convincingly blame anyone else for their failure to thrive as human beings. Acknowledging that humans mostly contend with more or less fixed tendencies to "sin" means that as long as there’s freedom, the moral playing field is going to be pretty level. Human nature being what it is, the race isn’t going to be a tie – we aren’t going to end up equal in virtue or happiness.

This is not to deny very real oppression and injustice. I am certainly not saying that oppressed people should necessarily take the route of resignation, passivity, and forgiveness. I am saying, however, that that route makes some sense for some people; and the older one becomes, the more sense it makes. Economic justice is vital; we can never lose sight of it. But, unfortunately, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for what I consider true human liberation; and if I have learned anything on this sabbatical, it is that older civilizations, such as those of the Third World and even Europe, are far more skeptical than Americans about the importance of possessions or social position or legal rights for making a person happy or free or good. All the great world religions, including Christianity, are about coming to terms with limits. They are about realizing that the world is not what you might like, that life is often unfair, that the evil prosper and the good suffer, that striving is often in vain, that you die, etc. Hindu women, for example, commonly insist that they are free in spite of their obviously inferior and unequal status; they do not understand women’s liberation. It is taken for granted in Hinduism that some people will always be exploited and on the bottom of the social heap. Hinduism, Confucianism, and Platonism see the ideal society as radically unequal – one’s social or economic role has little if any relation to personal happiness or the worth of one’s life.

The insight of old civilizations is that human existence is always conditioned; no one escapes biology or some form of indoctrination. Freud (a deep thinker in spite of the many ways in which we might disagree with him) adds that no one escapes humiliation: the price of civilization is damaged self-esteem. Humiliation is the inevitable result of the trauma of learning we are not the center of the universe. We may never fully recover from this; but if we do, it is by giving up our infantile desire to have everything we want and identifying ourselves with some set of moral rules or principles – choosing those rules as our rules. (Freud calls this the development of a super-ego.) Freud notes our ambivalence here. He observes that some people deal with the humiliation by making it their primary source of psycho- sexual pleasure. The existence of masochists (people who delight in enslavement) of both sexes, masochists of all races and social classes, people who apparently have no desire to be "equal", is another disquieting reality for liberals. At best, Freud says, we make an uneasy and failed compromise with our infantile selves; hence, the inevitable "discontent" of civilized people.

I agree with Freud that civilized people’s self-esteem is inevitably curtailed – if not by parents or school, then by love, work, or simply aging. We escape and become free, as Freud and Kant say, by choosing to do the right thing without considering the consequences for our little selves – by setting status and self-interest aside, to the extent that this is possible, given " human nature". If society were just, personal liberation wouldn’t be so much a matter of moral and material luck. But even if society were just, not everyone would choose to be free.

I do not want to say these are my settled views on the question of human nature, but this is where I currently sit. These views lead me inevitably to ponder the moral challenges of contemporary American society. As I have indicated, I do not think those challenges are really racism or sexism. And I think much is lost when public discourse becomes polarized along racial or sexual lines, as the debate over multiculturalism reveals it to be. We cannot endlessly emphasize our membership in victimized groups. We cannot endlessly obsess about how as children we didn’t get what richer, better-loved, better-treated white boys got. That was last week, last year, five or ten or thirty or fifty years ago. That’s the past. Multiculturalism and feminism today won’t get me a quinceañ era. Affirmative action in 1993 won’t get me into medical school in 1967.

Consumer culture offers the consolation of money and possessions. Yet like Marcuse, I am profoundly suspicious of it, and oppressed people should be particularly wary. It can perpetuate unjust social stratification and in the paradise of "stuff", people do not necessarily seem better or happier. Quite the contrary. In consumer culture, you can express yourself intelligibly only through your consumption, through your purchases; your identity is tied up in the products you buy; your very self is merely another "package" on display. (No wonder students resist the self-promotion required to obtain a "real" job; it is nothing but "grooming for the camera", which they understand.) Not excellence, but the appearance of excellence counts. Not honesty and diligence, but the show. (It’s always show time.) The goal of life is to become an image, a shadow self – to be seen a certain way, but never to see. But that goal is perverse: a life of passivity, consuming prepackaged images and being consumed by them. Only the image-makers profit; but more importantly, we lose sight of our active, whole-hearted, authentic, best selves.

It is my job as a philosopher to try to think things through. Thus I cannot help bringing up philosophical matters that seem to me obviously essential but usually overlooked in the multiculturalism debate. I suppose that at bottom, I do not even think most people’s problems are "essentially" economic; they are spiritual, moral, philosophical (surprise!). And they are not new or particularly modern (though I think they are characteristically Western because of the Western tradition of individuality). The lure of "stuff" makes most Americans (rich and poor) voluntarily surrender their cultural and spiritual identities in favor of passive consumerism – at least for a time.

Thus, like Menand, I am skeptical about the usual rather superficial arguments given for multiculturalism. I think these arguments obscure the real underlying issues of economic power, social justice, quality of life, and spiritual and ethical priorities. Achieving the goals of multicultural education won’t necessarily eliminate economic class divisions; it may actually help perpetuate them by simply creating more diverse persuasive images (as it is realized, e.g., that images of African-Americans can sell athletic shoes, that images of Asian-Americans can sell milk, that non-white fashion models can sell clothes and cosmetics and novel hairstyles, etc.). But personal liberation is more than "self-expression" through consuming; the wants I can satisfy at the mall aren’t necessarily my best self’s desires. A citizen is more than a consumer. A good person is more than a good shopper. Although people (both rich and poor) might feel better in the short run by making purchases (which are most often merely symbolic), they are no closer to genuine personal liberation.

I begin to understand myself and my life by understanding my culture or my race or my sex’s history and position; multicultural education is essential. But much of what passes for education demands only passivity from students. The struggle to finally become my best self is active, difficult, and potentially lonely, as Richard Rodriguez argues eloquently in Hunger of Memory. That struggle might well alienate me from my family, my community, my race, my sex, my culture itself; many authentic lives are scandalous. Seeking one’s truest and best self, immune to "consuming images", requires great courage, because from the perspective of consumer culture, it is a downright subversive quest.