OK, I said I'd get back to Jeff on Cultural Essentisalism and Multiculturalism.
It's ironic that at the moment that anthropology rejected the idea of a culture as a fixed, bounded entity, that antiracists alighted upon it as a replacement for "race". It is true that all humans are social animals and therefore culture-bearers. As Kwame Anthony Appiuah put it in the Ethics of Identity, "It's not easy to imagine a person, or people, bereft of culture. The problem with grand claims for the necessity of culture is that we can't readily imagine an alternative. It's like form: you can't not have it". (p126). The problem is that identity politics has taken ought from is, and extrapolated the cultures one should have. Recommended modes of being black or being gay. Or whatever. What Anthony Appiah refers to as "life scripts".
Social beings are transformative beings. Cultures don't stand still. And even if they did, what would it mean to say that a 16-year-old British "Asian" girl with Bangladeshi ancestry shared the same culture as a 50-year-old man in Dhaka? It makes no sense to say that there is an authentic culture that those two people share. To demand that every individual is integrated into a particular cultural group is to fail to grasp that. Just because I have Irish ancestry, does that mean I cannot truly be myself unless I speak Irish Gaelic and set up road-side shrines to Mary?
Then comes the demand that cultures be protected and preserved. People like Will Kymlicka and Charles Taylor claim that the survival of particular cultures are essential to people's lives. This reminds us of the kind of nonsense contested in Quebec whereby children who had French ancestry had to go to French medium schools. There was no personal choice permitted. This was only overturned in 2009. Cultures change. We don't speak Shakespearian English, and Shakespeare didn't speak like Chaucer. The search for an authentic cultural identity is so obviously anti progressive, you wonder why it needs to be said. But it does.