Precisely because such paradigms are only temporary one can always find difficulties with them. Democracy, for example, can only be sustained by suppressing that which opposes democracy. But I would suggest that there exist more than mere 'difficulties' with the idea of a multicultural society. A multicultural society is a contradiction in terms. And a multicultural society inevitably leads to the very situation that it was established in order to prevent.

What do we mean by 'culture'? Culture is an extremely broad term which encompasses not just different national or regional ways of life but also those of cultural sub-groups such as Goths. When referring to a multi-cultural society, we are really referring to a multiethnic society. Ethnicity, in recent years, has simply come to mean 'race' but in anthropological terms it encompasses a lot more than that. 'Ethnicity' refers to a number of shared factors that, together, create the identity of a people. These would tend to include race, first language, shared history, religion, living area and simply methods of everyday life.

The importance of individual factors will alter according to political or social pressures amongst different groups in society. Hence, Walpole played down the importance of race and emphasised the importance of religion when he was trying to persuade the English to accept Protestant William of Orange as their king. The Scottish National Party emphasise shared history and living area in order to distinguish Scottishness from Englishness. But ethnicity is also a relational concept. One can only be aware of ones identity if one can perceive differences between oneself and others. As such, an ethnicity must be in contact with other ethnic groups and, as a result, both will be in a constant state of change. This change will often involve one culture imitating the dominant culture in a process known as 'Rank Concession Syndrome.'

The first question we should ask is 'What is a society?' Essentially, in our context, it is a community. A Community is a group of people acting towards the same goals. This is generally in a structured fashion but sometimes communitas - a feeling of individual oneness with the community as a whole - may be created. Indeed, this may help to bond the community together. In acting towards the same goals, therefore, members of the community must think and act in similar fashions. Anthropologist Mary Douglas thus concludes that if the level of shared belief and conformity within a group is strong, there will be a strong community. If these are weak, there will be a weak community. There will certainly be no sense of nation, at least not in the modern sense, as this involves the ability to control large numbers of people and, for it to really function, sufficient points of commonality to create an 'Imagined Community.' That is to say a community in which people who have never met are bonded together.

As such, is a multicultural society possible? Those who propound a multicultural society argue for the importance of cultural diversity. But, as we have seen, ethnicity is a constantly changing process and weaker cultures are always influenced by more dominant ones. As such, the only way to preserve cultural difference is either to keep different ethnic groups apart or to deliberately promote the maintenance of cultural difference as is the Government's current policy. Now what this leads to in turn is an extremely divided society. And a divided society will inevitably lead to conflict.

Members of the different communities do not have shared bonds which make them more inclined to tolerate each other and as such conflicts will be clear and frequent. The simplest way to deal with that is a 'Dictatorship of Tolerance' and perhaps the clearest example of this occurring is the Netherlands. Until the 1970s, Holland was clearly divided into religious pillars. If you were a Catholic you were born in a Catholic hospital, went to a Catholic school and a Catholic University. You even watched Catholic television. The Catholic and Protestant pillars simply did not mix. The result was an emphasis on 'tolerance' which has led to Holland being, in theory, one of the most tolerant societies in the world. But in doing so, it has created a situation in which the pressure to be 'tolerant' is such that a mono-cultural society has developed. Those aspects of either faith that are 'intolerant' have had to be eliminated. This has contributed to a break-down in Pillarisation in the Netherlands. The two communities are for more united than they once were and many differences - along with the 'diversity' that goes with them - have been eliminated.

The pressure to conform to this 'Dictatorship of Tolerance' flared-up in the form of Pim Fortuyn and his condemnation of the intolerant views, towards homosexuals for example, of Moslems during the 2002 Election. They, he felt, had to made to conform to Dutch mono-culture. Ironically, he was consequently condemned for being intolerant of Moslems himself. This 'Dictatorship of Tolerance' effectively erodes the very difference that multiculturalism seeks to preserve. It also promotes the very intolerance of dissent - as was shown with the media condemnation of Fortuyn - that a multicultural society condemns when it is found in 'racism' or 'nationalism,' again contradicting its own purpose.

With such an intolerance of dissent, a multicultural society quickly becomes undemocratic as can be seen in the way in which people have been sacked for being BNP activists or pelted with eggs for being BNP councillors as happened in Burnley in May 2003. This absence of rationality can also be seen in terms of debate. One hears the circular argument that multiculturalism is good because it enriches society and it enriches society by making it more diverse. Anti-Nazis lump together supposed 'Neo-Nazis' and those who have 'written articles against a multicultural society' to smear them by association. Otherwise, and with no evidence, such people will be termed 'racist', the modern equivalent of 'heretic' and their characters will be otherwise smeared. Such behaviour leads us to ask whether we want the lack of democracy that goes with a multicultural society.

But multiculturalism also leads, conversely, to a lack of society in the traditional sense. The 'Dictatorship of Tolerance' still allows a significant amount of cultural difference, while eroding it at the same time. As a consequence, society evolves into a number of cultural microcosms. We have the 'Black Community' and the 'Moslem Community.' In Britain, we have seen a retreat by many white people into older identities - Cornish Nationalism, for example, or a kind of regionalism in such areas as Yorkshire. Thus, while there may exist a tremendous sense of community amongst cultural subgroups, the sense of community between members of society as a whole is lessened. Members of this society are no longer thinking in the same way or doing the same things and, as a consequence, a weak and divided society is created. Thus, it would appear that, in this respect, you can either have 'multiculturalism' or you can have 'society.' Belgium is an inherently multicultural nation, divided between Flemish, French and German speakers. It is, essentially, three groups loosely held together by a French-speaking monarchy and, as a consequence, there is very little sense of national community.

Moreover, as with many left-wing dogmas, multiculturalism is misanthropic. It opposes human nature by attempting to prevent Rank Concession Syndrome on the one hand and prevent community consciousness on the other. Islamic culture without the right to be polygamous is not quite Islamic culture. If one places alien cultures together, one inherently forces those cultures adapt to each other to a certain degree. Thus, one no longer possesses the culture with which one began, lessening cultural diversity. Also, it is simply natural that members of minority cultures will imitate the dominant culture within any society. As a consequence, there will always be a dominant culture that, to a greater or lesser extent, erodes cultural diversity. In Britain, the dominant culture is England. Hence, the Scottish and Welsh speak, on the whole, English as a first language. In this sense multiculturalism becomes very difficult to achieve.

In response, multiculturalists deliberately promote minority cultures in an attempt to preserve them against Rank Concession Syndrome. But the consequence of this is often the erosion of the dominant culture. It is quite logical that the promotion of Islamic culture should end in the teaching of Urdu to children who live in areas with large numbers of Moslems and the erection of sign-posts, for example, in that language. However, this, we might suggest, impinges on aspects of traditional English culture. 'Signs-posts should just be in English,' people might respond. 'Children should ostensibly be taught about English culture!' The result is, often, a rise in nationalism, and thus a desire to assert the native identity, within the dominant culture.

Now this, just like Rank Concession Syndrome, threatens multiculturalism. Proponents deal with this by branding nationalists from dominant cultures 'Nazis.' If you are a Scottish, Friesian or Breton nationalist that is acceptable because you are preserving a minority culture. However, if you are British (British nationalism is very much, one might argue, English nationalism), Dutch or French nationalist then you are a Nazi. The dominant culture generally derives from the wealthier area. Thus, for the poor South of Italy, regionalism is quite acceptable to multiculturalists. However, the Lega Nord, who want an independent North, are accused of being fascists. As a consequence, all but the most paradigmatic values and traditions of the host nation are eroded, making society less diverse and significantly altering a culture.

Also, multiculturalists only wish to preserve cultural diversity in certain ways. We have already seen the way in which ethnicity comprises of a number of factors. Multiculturalists are happy to preserve an ethnicity's language, for example. Languages that might be on the verge of dying out are thus artificially revived and this can be seen with such Celtic languages as Cornish or Manx. They are happy to preserve certain cultural traditions and each year in Leicester, for example, there is a significant celebration of the Hindu 'Festival of Light.' However, they have no interest in preserving race despite the fact that this is clearly a significant dimension to any ethnicity. Physical differences, perhaps the most conspicuous dimension of ethnicity, are to be allowed to die away.

Now, it is clearly impossible to believe in a multiethnic or multicultural society without trying to preserve racial differences. But one might argue that the multicultural emphasis on ethnic diversity does indeed help to preserve such differences. At many American universities, such as Brown and even Yale, ethnic minority students can opt to share rooms only with other members of their racial group. Thus, those with whom they create strong bonds will be of their own race. No-one calls this racism. White students have no such option but one imagines that people might view it as 'racist' if they did. Again, racism is only racism if it is from the perceived dominant culture.

A multicultural society is self contradictory and impossible to achieve. In order to function as a society, it will lead to a Dictatorship of Tolerance and the consequent alteration of the very cultures it attempts to preserve. In addition, it will lead to exactly the kind of intolerance that it is trying to prevent but towards those who disagree with its principles. The net result will be a weak and divided society which would appear to contradict the definition of society or community as members focussed together towards certain goals. We have also seen the way in which multiculturalism is misanthropic. Advocates attempt to stand in the way of the quite natural process of Rank Concession Syndrome but they also attempt to stand in the way of the, likewise, quite natural reactions of a community that regards its way of life as being under threat. They deal with this by slurring nationalists from the dominant culture. This allows for the erosion of the dominant culture, seemingly contradicting any desire for multiculturalism. Finally, advocates only wish to preserve ethnic diversity to a certain extent. They have little interest in the racial dimension, preventing a true multicultural society. However, they effectively assist the preservation of minority racial groups, but not dominant ones. Clearly, in so many respects, the term 'multicultural society' is self-contradictory, allowing advocates to bring about the opposite of what they supposedly desire. A multicultural society is impossible. One can, indeed, allow cultures to mix together while promoting the current differences between these cultures. But to call this a 'Multicultural Society' is ridiculous.

EDWARD DUTTON