The internal contradiction of multiculturalism

Check out this article on Zenit, in which Professor Christopher Shannon explains what multiculuralism is and why it is self-defeating.  An exerpt:

Q: What is multiculturalism, and how does it end up subverting culture?

Shannon: Multiculturalism means different things to different people. If I had to identify a common ground that unites all self-proclaimed multiculturalists, it would come down to two points. First, all cultures are equal in value and have an equal right to flourish free from external constraints; and second, the greater good of humanity — defined in terms of peace, love and understanding — is best served by people living within or directly experiencing as many different cultures.

The irony or contradiction within this ideal of diversity lies in the historical reality that all of the traditional cultures celebrated in the multiculturalist literature were able to flourish and develop their unique beauty precisely because of a degree of isolation now judged to be the incubator of intolerance.

The peoples of the South Pacific islands developed their unique cultures largely due to their separation from the mainland of Southeast Asia and from each other.

The Hurons and the Iroquois of North America maintained distinct cultures in large part because they were sworn enemies. Sustained contact between cultures transforms — that is, undermines the integrity of — each culture.

The demand on the part of multiculturalists for a constant engagement with difference betrays a very elitist, cosmopolitan vision of culture in which each individual is free to sample the cultures of the world and piece together their own idiosyncratic, personal “culture.” By the standards of most of the cultures in world history, this is simply cultural consumerism.

Multiculturalists mingle cultures to acheive “diversity”, but cultures can only flourish when separate, so multiculturalism destroys what it consumes.  I made similar points in my Defense of Regional Cultures.  It is encouraging, though, to see such a view openly stated in a Vatican-affiliated newsletter.  Could it be a sign that the Church is beginning to embrace its destiny as a leader of worldwide Reaction?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: