CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
Cultural differences characterize social groups. These differences can best be handled based on tolerance and acceptance.
Cultural and religious differences characterize social groups. Some people regard these differences as the root of all conflicts. They argue that to end conflicts, these differences in the name of culture and religion should be completely wiped out, and a society characterized by cultural and religious unity should be established. However, this proposal is simply impractical. Cultures cannot be made or destroyed by individuals at will in this way. A culture always emerges from a long historical process. It cannot be invented by someone sitting in an office preparing a ‘cultural plan.’
In the wake of the Second World War, numerous ideologues emerged in different countries. They began calling for the establishment of a monocultural society in the hope that this would promote national unity. This approach was promoted, for instance, in Canada, but it proved impractical there and was soon abandoned. Canada has officially adopted multiculturalism as its policy and has dropped monoculturalism for good.
The same happened in the USA as well. After the Second World War, a movement to promote ‘Americanization’ emerged, which sought to impose a single culture on all Americans. However, this movement failed because it was impractical. Thus, it was abandoned, and now in America, too, multiculturalism is the recognized policy.
The fact is that cultural differences are not a matter of differences only between two communities. Such differences can also be found among and between different sub-groups in each community. That is why to promote harmony between different cultural groups, what is required is not trying to do away with all differences (which is impossible) but, rather, promoting a commitment to ‘live and let live’ among people.
However, some people still advocate the failed experiment of monoculturalism and have given it the name ‘social engineering.’ Through this project, they seek to respond to cultural diversity among different communities by calling for restructuring their culture so that society is free from cultural differences and all citizens of a state share a common culture.
No matter what name it is called, the result of the effort to manufacture and impose a single culture on all people remains the same—pointless. It is impractical and unrealistic, no matter what it is termed—as ‘social engineering’ or by any other phrase. Moreover, to pursue anything impractical from the perspective of the Laws of Nature is simply pointless.
In this regard, my difference with ‘social engineers’ is practical. What they want to bring about is simply impractical and unrealistic. This sort of uniformity is impossible in line with the Laws of Nature. It has never been possible in the past, nor will it be possible in the future. Cultures always develop according to their laws. It is simply impossible to sit in an office and invent a cultural map of your choice and then impose it on every person and social group in a particular country. It is the case, in this regard, we should do exactly what we generally do about all other divisive issues—we should handle this issue based on the principle of tolerance and acceptance of difference and diversity while at the same time being committed to promoting a sense of oneness that transcends difference and diversity.