Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Sydney sociologist Salvatore Babones argues Pauline Hanson was onto something — monoculturalism, not multiculturalism, is what actually helps immigrants assimilate and thrive, while Europe’s approach has failed spectacularly.

Is Australia multicultural? Sydney University sociologist Salvatore Babones doesn’t think so.

The professor weighed in on the multiculturalism vs monoculturalism debate in a recent Civilisational Moment piece published by John Anderson Media.

Babones’ voice adds balance to criticisms of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s “Australia must be monocultural” remarks in her first-ever address at the Australian Press Club in June.

His informed viewpoint on monoculturalism largely agrees with Konstantin Kisin’s take. Kisin gave a rundown in a 4-minute video posted by Anderson last month.

Put simply, definitions matter.

In his essay, Babones argued that Pauline Hanson was somewhat right.

“Australia ‘must be monocultural’ in order to successfully absorb massive numbers of immigrants while maintaining social cohesion.”

Monoculturalism, he said, allows for assimilation.

Without a monoculture to integrate into, immigrants are segregated into us vs. them ghettos.

The Case for Assimilation

For Babones, who is an American academic working in Australia, assimilation is adopting the host country’s culture.

This is why Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand are, for the most part, immigration success stories.

When immigrants don’t assimilate, they hold themselves back, wrote Babones.

This also hurts the host country. Immigrants who refuse to assimilate divide societies, “with terrible consequences.”

Multiculturalism, as opposed to monoculturalism, for example, invites issues like sectarianism. A consequence often sugar-coated by slogans and protected by gaslighting anyone who points this out.

Such as “diversity is our strength” and “racist” if natives dare point out that a culture is incompatible.

The “promise of monoculturalism”, Babones argued, is the process of assimilation. Adults leave the tribal hatreds of their origin countries at the port of entry.

Offering an example, Babones said, “Gang violence remains a criminal activity, not a protected cultural tradition.”

“Successful immigrants,” he added, “adjust their behaviours to the cultural expectations of their new homes.”

“Being an immigrant is not a license to transgress societal norms.”

In sum, Monoculturalism is a win-win. Assimilation helps immigrants and lifts the host country because assimilation “means leaving some things behind.”

Aligning with arguments about why multiculturalism has failed, Babones notes that assimilation in the United States is a success because the immigrants have joined that community.

By contrast, Western Europe is vastly different. “Natives and immigrants live in separate and unequal communities,” he explained. “‘Integration’ is the goal these countries have spectacularly failed to achieve.”

The European mass immigration, multicultural story speaks of “crime, social exclusion and welfare dependency.”

Many activists who “disparage assimilation”, Babones bluntly states, “are unwitting segregationists.”

“Multicultural policies encourage immigrants to stay in their lanes.”

This highlights the strength of monoculturalism, he argues.

Assimilation promises that immigrants become one with us. It doesn’t tear countries up by turning their societies into a warzone between us and them.

Is Australia Even Multicultural?

Speaking with The Daily Declaration, he added that multiculturalism doesn’t truly exist in Australia.

Australia is monocultural, he asserted. Aside from a small number of separatists, immigrants are assimilating. Babones pointed to intermarriage as a key indicator of this.

Asked about what culture means, he replied by stating, “A way of life.”

A uniquely Australian culture, for example, still holds the echo of its Christian past, on top of an embrace of freedom of religion and free speech.

Unlike Americans, Aussies shy away from politics.

Australia’s institutions are also undeniably British.

As such, a diehard multiculturalist would be hard-pressed to admit that multiculturalism proper reigns. Let alone properly defend that position.

See John Anderson’s own comments on that subject here:

Most people, Babones said, don’t even understand the term multiculturalism.

It’s thrown about by politicians because it’s the nice “inclusive” thing to say, not because it’s right.

“Ironically,” Babones said, “true multiculturalism is in effect a philosophy of separateness,” not inclusion.

“It’s a terrible policy.”

Ask a multiculturalist if they honestly believed that forced marriage was acceptable, and they would find it difficult to justify, he added.

This is because multiculturalism proper means separating immigrants into enclaves where they protect, live out and maintain their cultural identity over, and sometimes against, the host country.

Multiculturalism is one of those things that look good on paper, yet fail to translate well in reality, Babones stated.

Asked whether the West could survive what multiculturalism allows, he said, “Yes. Democracy is incredibly robust.”

As such, he said he’s not on board with the catastrophising about its death.

Optimistic, Babones replied, very few nations with over 25 years of voting history collapse.

Plus, what we have in Australia isn’t true multiculturalism; it’s soft multiculturalism, which is, in practice, just a euphemism for monoculturalism.

This is different from ethnocentrism, he explained, which isn’t something any Australian academic or politician, let alone One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, is pushing for.

Worth noting, he drew on the importance of making a distinction between Indigenous multiculturalism and immigration assimilation.

Although conflated with one another, they’re separate issues, he said.

This was the problem with the 1960s intellectual push against indigenous Australians assimilating with Australian culture.

It held back Indigenous Australians from contributing to that culture and, therefore, broader Australian society.

The Real Immigration Problem

The big issue for Australians, Babones told The Daily Declaration, is improperly balanced immigration procedures and policy direction.

For instance, someone can come to Australia on a temporary working visa and stay for 20 years without becoming a citizen.

It’s faster for someone from Nepal to get into the country on a student visa than for the spouse of an Australian citizen to get in, even if that spouse is an American with a Stanford degree.

Contributing to the monoculturalism debate takes courage.

When The Daily Declaration asked about any fallout, the professor said he’s had none.

Asked to provide some closing remarks, the sociologist quipped,

“Real multiculturalism would mean keeping Muslims separate in Lakemba. A true monoculturalist would welcome them to brunch on the North Shore.”

___

Images courtesy of Unsplash and YouTube.