Jens-Martin Eriksen and Frederik Stjernfelt’s The Democratic Contradictions of Multiculturalism, published by Telos Press, is available for purchase here. The following interview with the authors appeared on the Huffington Post.
There is a moment in Jens-Martin Eriksen and Frederik Stjernfelt’s The Democratic Contradictions of Multiculturalism, when an Indian-Malaysian interview subject leans toward Eriksen and entreats him to describe the Malaysian multiculturalism as an “apartheid.” He invokes the infamous example of the erstwhile South Africa to underscore the distinct disadvantage his family experiences as a religious and ethnic minority in their native county with its “hard” form of multiculturalism. This provocative claim raises many questions about how multiculturalism is experienced in different contexts around the world.
An uncannily warm light fills L’Aquila’s 13th century Basilica Santa Maria di Collemaggio. As one approaches the altar, it becomes clear the illumination falls in from the open sky. The roof and dome collapsed in L’Aquila’s catastrophic 2009 6.3 earthquake. While the church is still undergoing repair, much of the edifice appears intact, newly reinforced by concrete and already restored in many parts. In fact, it attests to the continued vitality of this ancient European city as it slowly rebuilds amid various economic, legal and bureaucratic struggles. 
The Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s signature legislation on health care, attracted exceptional public attention, and rightly so. Health is a vital concern, and the topic is charged with acerbic party politics. More importantly, the terms of the debate give evidence of a widespread awareness, across the political spectrum, that the case has raised questions about the scope of government power and the permissible reach of legislation. If there is one point on which opponents have agreed, it is this recognition of the core importance of the outcome for defining the relationship of the state to society. Both proponents of cradle-to-grave government care and advocates of a strictly limited state power (whether in individualist, free-market, or communitarian modes) recognize that the health-care outcome could be a decisive moment in the evolution of American society. 
Two interesting things happened in the brouhaha over the proper antecedent of “that” in “You didn’t build that.” First, Dylan Matthews, a senior at Harvard who writes for Ezra Klein’s Wonkblog, explained several different theories of dessert and how each interpretation would inform the intent behind President Obama’s phrase. Soon afterward, Rush Limbaugh attempted to discredit Matthews’s and the Obama campaign’s defenses of the statement by accusing them of working with words. Never mind that they were accused of working with words; what we’re interested in is the suggestion that there is a fundamental antithesis between working with words and materially engaging with the world. Without meaning to do so, the two provided a perfect context for reading Fredy Perlman’s “Essay on Commodity Fetishism.” A close reading of the essay reveals that not only is there no antithesis, but also that because of the theory of the commodity fetish, Marxism is material engagement with real phenomena. 
In Giovanni Piana’s 
