Multiculturalism as a Contradiction in Terms
Culture is a beautiful product of human society that develops out of the natural order. Communities are naturally forming units that develop through shared experiences, beliefs, traditions, and values. The foundation of community is of course the family, and out of this structure further relationships are built that form the hierarchical web of society. Out of these naturally ordered structures individuals take on a social identity, societies grow, and culture develops.
Ludwig von Mises pointed to the division of labor as the function that separated man from animal and allowed society to develop. Due to the increased productivity from the division of labor, it is in man’s best interest to cooperate with those around him. Mises viewed this as the cause of the formation of the family structure and society as a whole. As he remarks: “the division of labor turns the self-sufficient individual into the dependent on his fellow men, the social animal of which Aristotle spoke [1].”
The division of labor is an innate feature of mankind that helps to reduce conflict in the world, as man can reason that he benefits from peaceful exchange. It would be wrong, however, to jump from this to the conclusion that universalism or globalism are ideals that should be strived toward. First, man is not homo economicus; although economic and material matters are certainly important, there are other things in life that matter that cannot be captured by mere economic efficiency. Second, trade and cooperation do not imply a lack of borders or cultural distinctions. Both free trade and the division of labor are fully compatible with segregation and closed communities. As Hoppe explains:
Not even the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation—the absence of any form of forced integration—that makes peaceful relationships—free trade—between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible. [2]
Throughout time, cultures and societies have possessed a large degree of homogeneity. Not only was this a simple outcome of genetics, but it also was a conscious decision. Tribes and villages would form based on common ties such as lineage, faith, or covenants. In fact, the term culture implies homogeneity, since it is defined as “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” If there was no homogeneity, there would be no group for a culture to develop from.
This brings us to the subject of multiculturalism, a major theme of 21st century America. This boils down to the idea that all cultures can and should be regarded as equal, and that diversity should be instilled to promote open-mindedness. The concept of multiculturalism stems from both a philosophy of egalitarianism, and of moral relativism. Egalitarianism tells us that all people are equal, and therefore the cultures and traditions of all groups should be treated with the same level of interest and respect. Moral relativism tells us that there is no true objective morality, and that all judgments are based only relative to the situation one finds oneself in. With no guiding principles for good and bad, all cultures must be viewed indifferently.
Culture is a beautiful part of humanity, but it is ignorant to act as though all cultures are equal. Some societies have achieved greater things than others, some have upheld truth and goodness better than others, and some are more compatible with human flourishing. It would be foolish, for example, to pretend as though the great works of Ancient Rome or the Republic of Florence were not superior to other cultures; this is exactly why these cultures are studied so extensively.
Besides the enormous problems with egalitarianism and moral relativism, it is important to question if multiculturalism as a concept is even achievable. Since culture stems from a shared belief system or set of traditions, multiculturalism is a contradiction in terms. Instead of upholding a variety of cultures, multiculturalism inevitably weakens and destroys culture in the name of diversity. This is not to say that there cannot be an overlap of cultural development, such as what has historically taken place in cities; but rather that an essential piece of culture is homogeneity, which multiculturalism is the antithesis of. Historically, even within cities, the most diverse areas of civilization, segregation was still the norm, with various groups occupying distinct areas. People were safer and more comfortable living among their own groups, and this allowed customs and traditions to be upheld in a way that would not be possible otherwise. Even in America, which many considered to be a “melting pot,” different groups settled in separate locations. With Puritans settling in New England, Quakers in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, etc.
As Hoppe observes:
The settlement of the North American continent confirmed the elementary sociological insight that all human societies are the outgrowth of families and kinship systems and hence, are characterized by a high degree of internal homogeneity, i.e., that 'likes' typically associate with 'likes' and distance and separate themselves from 'unlikes.' [3]
Without a common bond, there is no basis for social cohesion, which is a prerequisite for the development and sustainability of true culture and society. Both academic studies and mere observation support the fact that multiculturalism weakens social trust and unity. Multiculturalism is not a position of equilibrium, and there are essentially no historic examples of multicultural societies that did not end in either secession or the stamping out of dissident cultures. The real “culture” in multiculturalism is the ideology of egalitarianism and moral relativism, and this must come at the expense of true cultures. Cultures may be able to maintain their surface-level traditions such as music or food, but any part of the culture that interferes with the multicultural agenda cannot be allowed to survive. Ironically, multiculturalism results in the destruction of the very things it pretends to promote.
In Alien Nation, Peter Brimelow looks through the major examples of ethnically diverse countries throughout history and finds a consistent pattern of either successful breakaway movements or violent repression taking place in each case. Even supposedly successful examples of multicultural societies are far more homogenous than they seem. Switzerland, for example, is broken up into largely ethnically homogeneous cantons. Most recently, the canton of Jura was formed in 1979 as a separatist movement of French-speaking Catholics breaking off from the primarily German-speaking Protestant canton of Bern.
If multiculturalists were serious about their alleged desires for promoting a diversity of culture, they would be the largest proponents of secessionist movements, especially when led by an ethnic or cultural minority. Hoppe explains:
Secession increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures. Secession will end the forced integration brought about by centralization, and rather than stimulating social strife and cultural leveling, it will promote the peaceful, cooperative competition of different, territorially separate cultures. [4]
This is why Mises stressed secession as the ultimate means of achieving self-determination for ethnic and cultural groups. Although he did not believe this form of self-determination could be realistically carried out to the level of the individual, he stressed the importance for each group to be able to separate themselves and live according to their own traditions and laws. It is unrealistic to believe that many separate groups can live together in complete harmony while still maintaining the homogeneity and social cohesion required for both cultural flourishing, and an ordered society. Laws and societal etiquette cannot please everyone simultaneously, and the best way to show reverence for unique cultures is to allow them to exist unhindered.
This article does not seek to address the malicious ends certain groups may be attempting to achieve under the guise of multiculturalism, which is a separate issue. Instead, this is an attempt to argue against forced integration and multiculturalism using the very goal multiculturalists act as though they are trying to achieve: respecting a variety of diverse cultures. Separatism does not imply hatred; on the contrary, it allows different groups to resolve jurisdictional disputes without the need for violence.
The United States today can hardly be considered a unified country, and the current form of globalist multiculturalism may be the final nail in the coffin for any form of national unity. In the past there was at least an emphasis on the “Americanization” of immigrants, which helped to create at least some level of social cohesion between various groups. Due to multicultural and egalitarian movements, this practice has largely come to an end. As expectations for integration have ended, solidarity between groups have fallen, and social disintegration has accelerated. Jura’s secession from the canton of Bern is a recent case of how two areas were able to peacefully separate in order to maintain their distinct cultures, and this is an example the United States would be wise to learn from.
Citations:
[1]: Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, pg. 25
[2]: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, pg. 140
[3]: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, pg. 268
[4]: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, pg. 117