Those who assert the impossibility of a truly multicultural society start from a sociological assumption that is difficult to deny: the need for cultural homogeneity as a pillar of strong and lasting institutions. Historically, they seem to be right. Examples of long-lasting societies show us the importance of cultural homogeneity, so when conservatives warn that the disintegration of current social institutions inevitably causes social collapse, they are right.
The Portuguese Monarchy, for example, was based on rigid sociocultural assumptions of strong consensus (real or resigned, it is irrelevant for this purpose): Christianity, the source or divine legitimacy of royal power, the organization of society into functional classes (people, bourgeoisie, clergy, nobility). Logically, only by calling into question the divine legitimacy of royal power can the creation of a Republic be considered. And, as strong social and political transitions rarely occur in peaceful contexts, structural changes imply transitional periods of turmoil, an example of which is precisely our 1st Republic.
Looking cautiously at the deconstruction of social institutions is generally sensible. What is different is what, in practice, many conservatives do when, in the name of fear (and to maintain positions of privilege), they uncritically defend the maintenance of social and political institutions regardless of their merit or benefit for individual and collective interests. Fortunately, however, conservatives (in this more reductionist sense) are the biggest losers in history. Otherwise, we would still be living as hunter-gatherers in extended, nomadic families.
Between fear and temerity, rationality and ethics of human values must prevail that recognize, for everyone, essential minimums of dignity and freedom. Values that each of us claims for ourselves unconditionally, although so many of us, frivolously, demonstrate that we are capable of denying them to others.
The tuning fork of social transformation compatible with a minimally cohesive and stable society is found, not in an uncritical process of deconstruction, but in a continuous and progressive process of reconstruction (of social and political institutions). This process must, rationally and ethically, advance towards guaranteeing the greatest possible scope of freedom and dignity for each person, respecting the greatest possible scope of freedom and dignity for all.
It is in this context that there is no place for the death penalty, or for impunity for certain social categories. For a society based on slavery, or for racism. For forced marriage, or for discrimination based on gender. And so on.
This is not to say that it is easy to assimilate these social transformations, or even that it is always peaceful. I just want to say that, in the long term, it is a possible path, and, in my opinion, the only one leading to peaceful coexistence and sharing (in and on the planet). Unfortunately, we have hidden obstacles in every political quadrant. It’s just that true multiculturalism implies tolerance towards differences that we neither understand nor accept nor want for ourselves.
There is no cute multiculturalism, where we are all friends. While one sees a meat restaurant as a slaughterhouse for sentient beings, and another sees abortion as cruel murder, it won’t be easy for us to all be friends (maybe it won’t even be possible). The good news is that we don’t need to be friends, nor do we need to like each other. What we have to do is tolerate and live peacefully with difference. Even the one that seems to threaten our identity (or our values).
It doesn’t seem to me that this is that difficult (as a rule), and we have localized and partial historical examples of success. Rebuilding involves progressively replacing the traditional pillars of social cohesion (religion, centralized power, and social positions) with other institutions or values: equality (before the law), freedom (of personal construction), dignity, solidarity (in access to essential goods and resources), can be ideal starting points.
After millennia in which our genetic memory associated survival with sociocultural assimilation – the minority difference, as the video from rebel penguin that ran for the mountain, was often a death sentence –, reconstruction involves explaining to our brains that there is now a wider margin for minority difference, and that this does not necessarily imply social implosion. All of this is done with education and control of the economy.
Control of the economy? Yes, it is the central pillar. Popular wisdom is almost always right, and in homes where there is no bread… It is no coincidence that the far right experienced exponential growth in Europe after the 2008 crisis. The far right and fascist movements flourish when families feel a decrease in quality of life or expectations of economic improvement.
When Europe decided, between 2008 and 2012, to save banks and financial speculators at the expense of maintaining strong and resilient market economies, instead of protecting household savings and citizens’ quality of life, it pushed itself into the hole where it is today. This happened following a great distance between politics and citizens – the technocratic world of lobbies European lives in an artificial bubble, increasingly alienated from reality – and the compromise of politics by economic and financial interests.
Frustrated and hopeless people, who don’t know if they will have work next month, who can’t keep a house, or are forced to immigrate, are understandably much less sensitive to the struggles of minorities, animal rights, or a climate threat that they don’t understand (until the roof falls on them), flags that have been at the forefront of the European left.
From here, it is all too easy for the far right to channel frustration towards selected targets, generating a convenient storehouse of distrust, fear and hatred. It is also a distraction maneuver for the people. While they are afraid of immigrants and hate transsexuals, they do not look at the Lloyds speculator, even though we know today exactly who were responsible for the 2008 crisis and the fragility of the current economy, absolutely hostage to financial speculation. As we also know who runs networks of sexual trafficking of children and young girls, and it is not homosexuals or transsexuals…
But it is possible to undo this skein of nonsense, calming unjustified fears, neutralizing hatred, through education and a realistic political discourse that recognizes the economy and the welfare state as priority issues, as urgent for majorities as for minorities. It’s just that there’s only one planet! And we all live here together.
It is possible to live with radical differences between population groups. Let’s look at religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire. The Jews reject the figure of Jesus as a prophet, and consider him a heretic; Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, but reject his divine nature; Christians follow the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are three intrinsically incompatible beliefs, and the respective religious texts censure these heresies in an intense (and, in certain parts, violent) way. Muslims are polygamous, have always recognized divorce, and did not prohibit abortion (until the 19th century); for Christians, divorce was prohibited and abortion was a serious crime; Jews consider divorce a spiritual evil, although they admit it in exceptional cases, and abortion is only possible when there is a risk to the mother’s life. However, Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together (essentially) peacefully, in reciprocal tolerance, during Ottoman rule, with religious freedom prevailing.
Palestine, as a symbolic place for the three religions, was a paradigmatic example of tolerance and coexistence (when under Ottoman control), until Zionism. It is when one party intends to acquire supremacy – putting the identity and survival of the others at risk – causing divisions, hierarchies and, consequently, hatred and violence, that the dream dies and conflict is born.
The problem does not lie in cultural difference (religious, political), but in supremacy. And there are supremacists for all flavors. When a feminist says that, in her ideal world, no woman would use hijabis based on the same flawed assumption as the sexist conservative when he states that, in his ideal world, all women would be housewives.
What is possible is to say: in an ideal world, each woman dresses as she prefers, and works wherever she prefers, at home, with or without children, or outside the home, and political, legal and social institutions must constantly promote the creation of conditions that allow a free choice (of political, religious and economic constraints) for one of these options. The housewife and the CEO do not need to understand their respective choices, they just need to be confident in their choices. I understand that the fact that someone else chooses differently does not call into question the merit of their own choice.
It is also necessary to neutralize fear. From conservatives and progressives. Progressives are, at this historical moment, afraid of setbacks, afraid of being attacked in the street (if they are LGBTQ+ or racialized, immigrants, etc.), afraid of being persecuted for expressing political ideas, afraid of seeing their identities banned or neutralized. But we find a similar fear among more traditional conservatives. If I said above that in a peaceful multicultural society there is no space for racism, I have to say now that in this society there is also no space for the criminalization of racism, as an expression of an identity. Whoever says racism, says homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
If we want a society where it is forbidden to “be” racist, we will live in constant risk of reaching a society where it is forbidden to “be” homosexual. A multicultural society does not prohibit or suppress identities. Tolerate them. Within consensually obtained limits (and changeable depending on circumstances).
In a multicultural society you can be racist, what you cannot do is attack racialized people, resort to violence against racialized people, discriminate based on race, insult racialized people because of race, etc. Because if your “freedom” can only exist at the expense of the dignity of others, then it is no longer freedom we are talking about, but supremacy.
Furthermore, a democratic multicultural society can and should tolerate fascist identities. What cannot be tolerated – and in Portugal it is already too late – are fascist parties, or any parties that want to impose their own identities, with the suppression of others, through the manipulation of democratic institutions.
The true enemies of multiculturalism are those who can only assert and live their identity through the suppression of opposing identities. And to neutralize them you don’t need weapons. Just bread, education, health, housing…
Leave a Reply