Multicultural versus monocultural societies and countries

[Viking]

Continuing the debate that I initiated here.

My claim: a world where all the countries are largely or completely monocultural is vastly preferable to a world where X number of countries are solidly multicultural.

That's what I've been trying to say.

I don't think labeling multiculturalism as "one more headache [...] that the country in question has to learn to deal with" does it justice, though.

For me, it's like building a house in valley where it floods every year versus building it in a valley where it floods every 300 years. I view the facilitation of large-scale multiculturalism as ultimately irresponsible.

Id argue they are both vulnerable to "nasty things" but in different ways.

Multiculturalism never prevented the USSR's imperialistic ambitions, neither does it prevent Russia's imperialistic ambitions now. It did not prevent the Holodomor, it did not prevent the USSR from ethnic cleansing (like the Crimean Tatars). Who was in charge of the USSR when the two previous examples took place? Josepth Stalin aka Ioseb Jughashvili, an ethnic Georgian ruling from a mostly ethnically Russian city.

What nasty stuff happening in mostly monocultural countries happen considerably less often or never at all in multicultural countries?

EDIT: For this post, monocultural ≠ culturally conservative. It's about the number of cultures within a geographic area.

[Montmorency]

I agree, in principle.

However, monoculture is impossible without dramatic alterations (likely engineered) to the cognitive structure of the human brain.

Simplest answer: hive mind.

What nasty stuff happening in mostly monocultural countries happen considerably less often or never at all in multicultural countries?

I'm not going to bother with catching up in the Ukraine thread, but the example you used in your post is an exemplar of multiculturalism like a suicidal person is the picture of health.

In the interim, therefore, the embrace of multiculturalism is far less harmful than attempts to impose some formulated culture.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My claim: a world where all the countries are largely or completely monocultural is vastly preferable to a world where X number of countries are solidly multicultural.

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

[Sir Moody]

The problem with Monoculture at the most fundamental level is even within Native Ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 distinct cultural group and to implement a monoculture you will need to suppress the other cultural identities - this is entirely possible and many cultures have dabbled in it (the Kingdom of England's suppression of Welsh culture for example) however the methods aren't often very "tasteful" and the results can backfire spectacularly...

In the other thread you used Syria as an example of a failed Multicultural state - id argue in fact the opposite - Assad's regime were attempting to instil a monoculture state by suppressing the rival cultural group (the Sunni Muslims in this case) which in combination with their Authoritarian methods lead to the uprisings and the now brutal civil war... ironically should the Sunnis win they will probably try the same thing in reverse...

[Viking]

I agree, in principle.

However, monoculture is impossible without dramatic alterations (likely engineered) to the cognitive structure of the human brain.

Simplest answer: hive mind.

I was thinking slightly less futuristic/theoretical. Diversity of sort tends to be a positive; people having different perspectives makes it more likely that at least someone will understand whatever. I don't think that multicultural is more likely to increase this kind of positive diversity, however; I think it's just as likely to increase partisan thinking.

I'm not going to bother with catching up in the Ukraine thread, but the example you used in your post is an exemplar of multiculturalism like a suicidal person is the picture of health.

Jughashvili's ethnicity was the icing on the cake. The point is that the USSR was highly multicultural; it comprised distinct cultural entities as diverse as Poland and Tajikistan.

In the interim, therefore, the embrace of multiculturalism is far less harmful than attempts to impose some formulated culture.

I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures in addition all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.

The problem with Monoculture at the most fundamental level is even within Native Ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 distinct cultural group and to implement a monoculture you will need to suppress the other cultural identities - this is entirely possible and many cultures have dabbled in it (the Kingdom of England's suppression of Welsh culture for example) however the methods aren't often very "tasteful" and the results can backfire spectacularly...

In the other thread you used Syria as an example of a failed Multicultural state - id argue in fact the opposite - Assad's regime were attempting to instil a monoculture state by suppressing the rival cultural group (the Sunni Muslims in this case) which in combination with their Authoritarian methods lead to the uprisings and the now brutal civil war... ironically should the Sunnis win they will probably try the same thing in reverse...

From what I've read, Assad's state was/is secular.

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

[Sir Moody]

I don't argue for suppression of culture. It's quite the opposite, I think that cultures trying to suppress (and generally fight) each other is almost an inevitability of multiculturalism and one of the reasons that I oppose it.

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

[Montmorency]

Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.

I am not interested in imposing culture. Personally, I am not very fond of culture itself. It's frustrating enough already having to deal with the silliness of my own culture; having to deal with the silliness of other cultures all the more so. I am an individualist. I embrace culture to the extent that it seems pragmatically necessary.

Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

[Viking]

so what do you suggest then? a mass break up of currently existing countries to match cultural divisions? surely you realise that isn't even feasible...

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

There's two views on multiculturalism: The one where cultural groups live side-by-side in some weird utopian hand-holding exercise (which, if you couldn't tell, is a false view mostly held by people who are critics of multiculturalism) and the far more correct notion that you accept people who are different from you, and over time everyone loses their culture, and a new culture is born fused from the two. I wouldn't want to live in an America without the white hip hop artists and freaking taco bell--"Mexican" food for poor white people. By that same token, I'm sure in a few generations Americans will take for granted that they don't get sunburned as easily, because they'll have a lot more melanin going on. Multiculturalism has benefits, and though it has downsides (especially when integration is resisted by either side) they are ostensibly temporary.

Multiculturalism is when two or more cultures live side by side, whether with friendship or hostility between them. You assume that different cultures will merge eventually. I don't think it's quite that simple.

If Usanians of European and African descents had mixed properly, a melanin boost from Mexicans would not have been that "necessary". The fact that these two groups still are comparably separated seems to me to indicate that the merger you assume will take place between all cultures is not something that can be taken for granted.

Now this is all contrary to the anti-multicultural stance that immigrants to a country--if allowed at all--should conform to the needs of the host country entirely. This is a hollow view, unless you're willing to enforce it with actual force, because only under the threat of force will people abandon their ways completely for something as shallow as, say, "American" culture. If one isn't willing to consider force, then one has to admit this point of view is absurd. Which is why it is almost exclusively the province of bigots who don't think things through all the way.

I don't think anything should be enforced, which is why I in return oppose mass-immigration; it's hard to deal with adequately. The US is a bit of a special example, since it is a really big and strongly federalised country, which alters a lot of the mechanisms considerably compared to the average country on this planet.

Ok, Viking: could you define "culture" and "multiculturalism", because you're using them in a slightly confusing way.



Obviously, it isn't possible to have no culture; we create culture merely by existing. Even a child raised by wolves develops culture.

It's not about pragmatism but cognitive structure. We can no more not have culture (without modifying the aforementioned) than we can not have the sense of there being a here and now (which can be temporarily modified with, for instance, psychotropics).

Culture is what is shared between people on a larger scale. The opposite of culture isn't really no culture (i.e. nothing), but idiosyncrasy. This definition seems completely compatible with definitions provided several places, like here:

the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

[Sir Moody]

Primarily, I am thinking about not creating more multiculture than what we already have.

Countries are breaking up in significant numbers due to cultural and ethnical differences. Just in very recent history we have: Kosovo from Serbia, East Timor from Indonesia, South Sudan from Sudan.

As unrecognised\less successful examples there are Kurdistan (from Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria), Abkhazia and South-Ossetia from Georgia and Nagorno-Karabakh from Azerbaijan.

and how exactly do you propose doing that without clamping down on cultural influences? it isn't as simple as stopping immigration - you will need to cut off the Internet (which is the biggest cultural exchange in History), Cut off all Foreign Media sources and cut all International trade...

It just isn't feasible without MASSIVE Authoritarian actions... and even then probably wouldn't work

[Pannonian]

No, no, no. Without multicultural societies we'd still be stuck with plain turnips for dinner. It's the immigrants with their funny smelling/looking but tasty foods that prompt us to improve our culinary lot; and it is much the same with art, technology, literature and architecture.

Asian cuisine is undeniably richer for the introduction of the chili, and we in Europe and America are doubtlessly better off for the introduction of Asian cuisine in our life. Gandaharan art would not nearly be as interesting or as beautiful to look at if it weren't for that special combination of Indian traditions fused with the Hellenistic sense of style and technical refinement.

The British will be better off when we throw away foreign influences and foods and return to good old British fare like fish and chips. Oh hang on, indigenous British food can't include fish and chips because the potato was introduced from the Americas. Pizzas can't exist because tomatoes were also introduced from the Americas. We're no longer a nation of tea drinkers as that's imported from south Asia. No curries or stir fries either, as that's Asian. We won't go too far back, as we'll lose the crop and animal package we got from the middle east. But we'll have to lose the compass, certain mathematical concepts (like Arabic numerals) and various other things we've picked up over the last few hundred years.

I've watched a few of the living history series on how everyday life was back in Tudor etc. times, and most of the more wondrous, luxurious stuff was foreign ideas and crafts introduced from Asia and elsewhere. Understandably so, as our expansions allowed us to cherry pick the best of the rest of the world and keep what we found good. And much of the world have done much the same for our culture too, as well as culture that we'd adopted and transported to where we had been. Most clashes have been where someone has defined culture as a monolithic thing and imposed it on all, whether by purifying what they see as the chosen culture, or by dominating others into submission. As for me, I like to have different cultures at my disposal, and to be able to pick and choose according to my taste.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Long ago, the potato came to this country. It didn't come with people from the Americas. Currently, the Llama is appearing more and more as a farm animal here, and I it was doubt immigrants from South America who first brought it in. Today, I can buy Korean mobile phones in the nearest electrical shop, and I don't need to have a Korean immigrant move into my home in return.

You don't need representatives of a culture to come over to stay in your country in order for your culture to absorb parts of their culture. You don't need the rest of their culture either.

Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh hang on...

You'll have to get rid of the Union Jack, too. Can't be having the Genoese cross on there, can we now? On the up side, you'll also be rid of the most depressing form of Protestantism known to mankind on account of it being a Swiss invention.

Question: is the Scottish flag still acceptable, or do we need to bin it, too? Can't be having the Scottish or working class Essex accents, though, that's for certain.

[Pannonian]

Ah but you see, the potato did not come to your country without some society somewhere turning multicultural. Same with the llamas and the cellphones. Truly monocultural societies will stagnate or at least advance at a much slower rate than others, since they are unable to benefit from the advances of other cultures without engaging in some form of cultural exchange (which precludes retaining a monoculture). You cannot have writing, for example, without it fundamentally altering your culture.

Unless your argument is really all "NIMBY", I'm afraid it doesn't hold water.

And finally, as plenty of farmers have found out to their cost: a monoculture may be easy and efficient in the short run but it will leave you to starve to death in the long run. That's why until late in the 20th century China was regularly plagued by famine as a matter of course whereas it took the introduction of the potato and severe mismanagement to trigger it in Ireland. I would contend that the same also holds for culture in the people sense: a monoculture leaves you ill prepared for a changing modern world, and more likely than not at some point your erratic and unprepared behaviour when confronted with something that is so far beyond your grasp will lead social studies the world over to name a particular human folly after it. All it needs is some reference to the subject of the culture shock... say 'cargo' ?

For an example of what happens to strict monocultures, see what happened to the greatest and most powerful empire in the world after they enforced their extreme internalism. The monocultural Chinese came under pressure from and were bullied by the multicultural Europeans. Their self-admitted turning point came when a faction resolved to take on board the best of what they found in British culture, and using a British colony as their springboard, won power in and proceeded to modernise China.

[HoreTore]

What's a monocultural society, except a multicultural one which has stayed multicultural for so long people no longer realize they're multicultural anymore?

Case in point: France. The most multicultural country in Europe, by far.

EDIT: Heck, or what about Viking's own town of Bergen? There's barely anything Norwegian at all about that city, yet it seems to do fine in everything except sports...

[Pannonian]

What's a monocultural society, except a multicultural one which has stayed multicultural for so long people no longer realize they're multicultural anymore?

Case in point: France. The most multicultural country in Europe, by far.

I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.

Slough (pronounced sl-ow, rhyming with plough): a town in southern England.
Slough (pronounced sl-uff, rhyming with rough): a layer of dead skin tissue.

[HoreTore]

I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.

Slough (pronounced sl-ow, rhyming with plough): a town in southern England.
Slough (pronounced sl-uff, rhyming with rough): a layer of dead skin tissue.

Yeah, England is a multicultural immigrant-fest, no doubt about that...

What I was aiming for, however, was the old Germany-France comparison of statehood, where France was a state without a people, and Germany a people without a state...

[Viking]

[...]

[...]

[...]

I am not talking about monoculturalism as cultural conservatism, I am taking about monoculturalism as the opposite of multiculturalism: i.e. only one culture per city/country you name it rather than several. Of course it would be stupid for a culture fight change in itself.

Made an addendum to the OP.

EDIT: Heck, or what about Viking's own town of Bergen? There's barely anything Norwegian at all about that city, yet it seems to do fine in everything except sports...

Don't know from where you got the idea that I am from Bergen; I am from the countryside. I don't care much for regional rivalry, and even less for sports; so whatever.

[HoreTore]

Don't know from where you got the idea that I am from Bergen; I am from the countryside. I don't care much for regional rivalry, and even less for sports; so whatever.

Sorry, must have confused you with someone else....

However, my comment was not an attempt to engage in any regional rivalry, it was a comment at how there is very little Norwegian about Bergen.

Yet, Bergen was the city which brought Norway out of the dark ages and into the modern world.


....But since you're rural, I can add the following:

The difference between urban and rural culture is huge. It has been the basis of several civil wars. Thus, a country which possesses both a strong agricultural sector as well as a strong industrial sector, is by definition a multicultural society. Is it your opinion that we would be better off if we scrapped one of the two sectors?

[Beskar]

I try to avoid the linguist issue by calling what I support "Open-Culture/Society", basically, it is a bed where new ideas can take root and supplant traditional/out-dated opinions and culture is based upon merits. It is where someone can come, bring something new with them, we learn all the good stuff from them, and we leave them learning the good from us. Society is a mutual exchange of ideas and information, bringing knowledge to benefit all.

[Viking]

Sorry, must have confused you with someone else....

However, my comment was not an attempt to engage in any regional rivalry, it was a comment at how there is very little Norwegian about Bergen.

Yet, Bergen was the city which brought Norway out of the dark ages and into the modern world.


....But since you're rural, I can add the following:

The difference between urban and rural culture is huge. It has been the basis of several civil wars. Thus, a country which possesses both a strong agricultural sector as well as a strong industrial sector, is by definition a multicultural society. Is it your opinion that we would be better off if we scrapped one of the two sectors?

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.

I try to avoid the linguist issue by calling what I support "Open-Culture/Society", basically, it is a bed where new ideas can take root and supplant traditional/out-dated opinions and culture is based upon merits. It is where someone can come, bring something new with them, we learn all the good stuff from them, and we leave them learning the good from us. Society is a mutual exchange of ideas and information, bringing knowledge to benefit all.

Sounds nice in theory, but in practice; there is more to it. Many people identify themselves with at least significant parts of the culture they belong to; so sometimes, identities clash. Others may seek routes of purity. I've heard that 2. generation immigrants can be more culturally conservative than what their parents are; but I don't know whether any scientific studies have been conducted on this.

[Husar]

I don't have much time to answer, but this is a good video on the topic:

[Brenus]

“Multiculturalism never prevented the USSR's imperialistic ambitions, neither does it prevent Russia's imperialistic ambitions now. It did not prevent the Holodomor, it did not prevent the USSR from ethnic cleansing (like the Crimean Tatars). Who was in charge of the USSR when the two previous examples took place? Josepth Stalin aka Ioseb Jughashvili, an ethnic Georgian ruling from a mostly ethnically Russian city.” This is not a problem of multiculturalism, it is a problem of politic, beliefs and dictatorship. The “holodomor” was not against an ethnic group as it killed as well Russians, as the Tatars were deported for political reason, as the Germans and others minorities who did collaborate with the German Armies (i.e. Cossack of Crimea). As the famine in Ireland and in India under UK regime, the famines in USSR happened because/for economic principles push to the extreme and the refusal by leaders to recognise mistake.

“I beg to differ. The majority of the French language is derived from a single linguistic set. The English language has several distinct sets of rules and customs, including famously farmyard animals whose name changes depending whether you're looking after the animal or eating it.” Err, no. French derived from German, Latin and others languages, but mostly by the fusion of the language of Oc(citant) an Oi (North). I can tell you that the same word have different meaning in Calais or in Marseilles, and even don’t want to speak of Canadian French, or variety in African Countries French. And if you want homonymy: sceau, sot, saut, seau (all pronounced as so ). As for description, a piece of meat change name depending if it comes for a wild animal or farm animals: Gigot (lamb) and cuisseau (dear) (even if the last tends to vanish) or/and size of the animal.

[Montmorency]

Problems:

As a larger point, conflict between cultures is one of the surest ways we have for the development and dissemination of improvements of any sort.

Freedom of movement is directly correlated with economic efficiency and power. However, with your tightly-gerrymandered vision of the world, movement would have to be heavily controlled and restricted to prevent more than a small degree of mixing. It would have to be a small degree as obviously if there's no movement between cities or whatever geopolitical unit you have in mind, then ultimately there will be almost no contact of any sort between them, and really that's the end of civilization. Ultimately, this will totally undermine your world unless you plan for periodic purges of some sort.

In the longer-term, preventing free mixing in commerce and settlement means it is absolutely necessary for the state to immediately implement systematic reproductive pairing schedules to minimize inbreeding within cultures.

Basically, you'd be taking some of the worst elements of the Soviet Union's system (not to say that all of yours would have been in the USSR - the folly exceeds even that).

[Montmorency]

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.

Missed this.

First point: that's unwarranted, silly, dangerous, and inherently impossible and self-contradictory.

Second point: it obviously depends on the country or countries, and the size of the "nearest cit[ies]" we're talking about.

[Montmorency]

Yet another problem:

On what basis do you distinguish "group cultures"? How are you going to categorize each and every human such that they can be placed with their groups and, you know, not bring along any other cultures? People are multicultural to a far greater extent than implied by even the smallest-scale terminological specifications.

I don't want to disparage you, but if you can't explain some more of the concrete details of this worldview in a way that addresses these issues, it will be revealed as another poorly-thought-out utopian thought-exercise fatally riddled with inconsistencies

[HoreTore]

As I said in the other thread, I am not searching for the ultimate monoculture. I want a monoculture that is varied on an individual level, as opposed to a polyculture that is varied on a group level. I want people to say "I am an individual and have my own opinions" rather than "My people are Flutniks and think X, while those people over there are Gragturts and think Y". To a great extent, cultures are states of mind as much as they are physical manifestations of norms etc. (but they really are both).

In modern times, I don't think the cultural differences between countryside and urban areas are that large in this country, anyway. Primary difference now is that more urban areas host larger populations and thus also more variation in opinion. You'll probably find much greater variation comparing the countrysides from two different parts of the country than comparing both of them with their nearest city.

I disregard this post by simply pointing you in the direction of the months-long "bygdedyret"-debate in Aftenposten a few years back.

Anyway, I see few differences between the identifiers of the rural west and the urban east in Norway, and the differences between the Hutu and the Tutsi.

The rural west has sheep, the east has wheat. The Tutsi had animals, the Hutu grew plants. The west is coast-bound, the east is inland. There is a geographic difference between the Hutu and Tutsi, but I can't recall at the moment what it was. Unlike the Hutu and the Tutsis, the east and west in Norway do not share a common language.

If Norways rural and urban populations equal a monoculture, then so does Rwanda. And Rwanda ended in a genocide...

[Pannonian]

Yet another problem:

On what basis do you distinguish "group cultures"? How are you going to categorize each and every human such that they can be placed with their groups and, you know, not bring along any other cultures? People are multicultural to a far greater extent than implied by even the smallest-scale terminological specifications.

I don't want to disparage you, but if you can't explain some more of the concrete details of this worldview in a way that addresses these issues, it will be revealed as another poorly-thought-out utopian thought-exercise fatally riddled with inconsistencies

It's a misconception of those who don't have much experience of how multiculturalism works in practice. For those of us who do live in a multicultural world, we know that "melting pot" is probably a better description of the reality. Throw everything into the mixer, and each person will take what they will from it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looks like its the same old story here - people talking at cross-purposes and attributing their own meaning to terms. Proponents of one view tend to view the other only in its most extreme sense, while keeping to a more sensible understanding of their own.

Another problem is that people here are focusing on highly specific historical examples, rather than considering the inherent merits of either of the forms of social organisation. No doubt throughout history there will be many instances where monoculturalism and multiculturalism have been sources of good, and many instances when they have been sources of evil. However, we should not forget that the mode through which they are implemented (eg whether by organic cultural spread, or more forcibly by oppression) is really a separate matter entirely, yet it has been conflated constantly throughout this thread.

Personally, I think the most important thing with culture is that it develops naturally, or organically - that is both reflects and binds the common experience of the people who give it its being. This is crucial for creating a society where there is mutual respect, where there is a sense of solidarity, and where there is something that can provide a bridge across more individual differences (gender, age, etc). I suppose such a culture would not be monocultural or multicultural, since there would neither be a single, dominant culture, nor would there be vastly different cultures living side by side. But for me, that would be the most healthy kind of culture.

[Fragony]

I have given it up, I know I am right but being right is not the same as being recognised as being right. There is only so much you can take in the end before you start feeling really uncomfortable with those who think differently. Dead discussion, it's a given that it ought to work, we will always have Paris.

[Sir Moody]

Personally, I think the most important thing with culture is that it develops naturally, or organically - that is both reflects and binds the common experience of the people who give it its being. This is crucial for creating a society where there is mutual respect, where there is a sense of solidarity, and where there is something that can provide a bridge across more individual differences (gender, age, etc). I suppose such a culture would not be monocultural or multicultural, since there would neither be a single, dominant culture, nor would there be vastly different cultures living side by side. But for me, that would be the most healthy kind of culture.

What you are describing is the Multicultural model - overtime cultures do naturally "bleed" into each other simply by living close to each other.

Multiculturalism does not require "vastly different" cultures to live side by side - the multiple cultural groups can easily be very similar (and often are) - for example (to massively oversimplify it) the English and the Welsh were distinct cultural groups who shared a great number of cultural traits and over time the 2 cultures have "merged" - while there are still distinct differences between the culture groups, these are now much smaller.

Obviously that was a grossly simplified example as the "English" and "Welsh" culture groups are in fact a conglomerate of a large number of smaller Culture groups and are not true culture groups themselves.

Obviously this process will take far longer with vastly different cultures but it is the same process.