Multicultural versus monocultural societies and countries

[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:

[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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[Gilrandir]

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.

The mixed character of a language's origin can't be a clue to determine how mono/multicultural is the present-day society which uses it.

The “holodomor” was not against an ethnic group as it killed as well Russians,

It was aimed against the whole of Ukraine, no matter people of what nationalities inhabited it. The borders of Ukraine (albeit only administrative at that time) were sealed so people from Ukraine were not allowed to leave it and very often they saw no famine outside it (for example across the river in Western Ukraine - then a part of Poland - or in Russia).
And finally:
@ all participants of this discussion:
You may argue back and forth, but the problem is that whether you want it or not, multiculturalism (as a trend within globalization) is here to stay and exacerbate. Period.

[Montmorency]

I don't have any intent to prevent people from forming groups. My intent is to avoid the facilitation of multiculturalism on a larger scale, as far as that is feasible and reasonable.

I've already offered the most relevant solution for the world today: don't accept mass-immigration. Be conscious of the segregation that it may cause.

???

You don't see the contradiction?

Anyway, so you are not really for monoculturalism as much as against multiculturalism, right? Otherwise, I see little reason to prevent cultures from assimilating such that there are later on fewer distinct cultures...

The fact that it has benefits does not make it the best system, not even in practice. You can read the reply this way, alternatively: So what?

Once before I was accused of dealing in "meaningless abstractions", but this...

My primary goal with non-multiculturalism is the stabilisation of society, anyway.

That's at least a little more specific. But the best way to achieve this has nothing to do with how many cultures (however you identify them) occupy a given space - it's to form a One-World Government, a single global state.

One of the advantages being, total freedom, and indeed facilitation of, movement for the sake of economic efficiency.

[Fisherking]

There is nothing wrong with a cosmopolitan multiethnic population but if you do not have the uniting force of a dominant culture you are asking for trouble.

Multiculturalism is a destructive myth. One will predominate.

[Viking]

???

You don't see the contradiction?

No. I am talking about groups that already exist when I talk about avoiding multiculturalism. The mechanisms involved when working against existing cultures getting solid foothold in new geographical entities is very different from preventing people from creating new groups. The latter is likely to require considerably more dubious tactics in order to be successful.

Anyway, so you are not really for monoculturalism as much as against multiculturalism, right? Otherwise, I see little reason to prevent cultures from assimilating such that there are later on fewer distinct cultures...

I think globalisation is much better at assimilation than mass-immigration.

Once before I was accused of dealing in "meaningless abstractions", but this...

You say

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.

I say "where do you want to go with this?". Are you suggesting we need a world with many cultures so that technology will advance?

That's at least a little more specific. But the best way to achieve this has nothing to do with how many cultures (however you identify them) occupy a given space - it's to form a One-World Government, a single global state.

One of the advantages being, total freedom, and indeed facilitation of, movement for the sake of economic efficiency.

Good luck agreeing on the laws for this state without first making major differences between the cultures vanish.

[Sir Moody]

The mixed character of a language's origin can't be a clue to determine how mono/multicultural is the present-day society which uses it.

while you are correct it doesn't say anything about the Modern country, charting the cultural influences on a language through the past can tell you a lot about how the cultures interacted with each other.

the prevalence of so many cultural influences within the English language shows that England was very much a melting pot of many cultures.

Id argue it still is... I am sure most would agree with me

[HoreTore]

while you are correct it doesn't say anything about the Modern country, charting the cultural influences on a language through the past can tell you a lot about how the cultures interacted with each other.

the prevalence of so many cultural influences within the English language shows that England was very much a melting pot of many cultures.

Id argue it still is... I am sure most would agree with me

Language is pretty much the number one cultural identifier.

EDIT: But that may be simply because most of those with a cultural degree started out studying literature...