Cultural pluralism isn’t a threat to liberal societies. Culture wars are.

In a recent speech in Ohio, Donald Trump continued his tactic of frightening his base with tales of evil immigrants crossing the border to threaten our way of life. His rhetoric is especially poignant for his supporters, whose fears and anxieties about immigrants are heightened thanks to the border crisis. Other leaders on the right sense these emotions and continue to peddle misleading claims about violent immigrants taking advantage of our welfare and stealing our jobs. More broadly, they push the tired narrative that immigrants will destroy the American way of life; they’ll bring their home cultures with them, diluting “our” culture and overtaking us in the process — a great replacement of sorts.

Over the past decade, these fears have led to the emergence of a new populism that thoroughly rejects cultural pluralism.  From the Great Recession to the Trump presidency to the pandemic, destabilizing events have provided enough evidence for many Americans that it is time to reevaluate the conviction that different ideas and cultures can coexist peacefully. But rather than reject cultural pluralism, paradigm-shifting events like these are the very moments when we should embrace openness and heterogeneity.  

Liberalism may create uncertainty, but culture wars never provide solutions 

The new right has embraced this populist opportunity with great zeal. Shifting demographics have given rise to cultural anxiety among the white working class, a subset of the population that has historically enjoyed a more prominent position in the broader culture. As the U.S. has become more diverse and more accepting of various lifestyles and cultural practices, many have felt left behind or marginalized. The new right recognized this vulnerability and exploited it by leaning into the culture wars that feed a constant stream of anti-democratic, anti-liberal ideas to its audience. 

As a result, many Americans have become suspicious of democratic pluralism. Increasingly, there is a sense that many on the right are, in fact, rejecting liberal democracy in favor of a “strong-man” style authoritarianism. Of course, the new right has embraced the notion that liberalism is weak and a failure. They argue that authoritative leadership is the only way to bring us back to a stable and culturally homogenous time.

Of course, today’s new right did not invent the idea that liberalism is weak and inherently self-destructive. Often, in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), people turn away from the uncertainties of liberalism and toward what they see as a more stable, predictable social arrangement. The right’s current authoritarian impulse is the salve for the sense of insecurity felt in the face of a quickly changing world that is leaving “traditional” ways of life behind. It is liberal democracy that got us here, they say; we cannot rely on liberal democracy to get us out.

Many on the right have decried multiculturalism for decades. In the 1960s,  neoconservative intellectuals like Irving Kristol, James Q. Wilson, and Gertrude Himmelfarb twisted the ideas of Scottish Enlightenment thinkers to justify an anti-diversity, anti-multicultural worldview. Their intellectual efforts were integral in fostering the sense of us-vs-them, the culture war between the “elites” and the common man. Citing the 18th-century moral philosopher Adam Smith, Kristol and Wilson — and later Francis Fukuyama — argued that “the people” had an in-born moral sense that amounted to an unerring common sense that should inform policy.1 It just so happened that much of this common sense was an expression of anxiety about increasing diversity, multiculturalism, and a generally more liberal culture. 

Marrying the culture war ethos with increasing anxiety due to rapid social change delegitimized cultural pluralism and liberal democracy in the minds of many on the right. Seeing these features of the postwar liberal order as failures, intellectual leaders on the right have increasingly argued for monoculturalism, or the idea that there ought to be a single culture to which everyone assimilates. In contrast to cultural pluralism, its supporters argue that monoculturalism is stronger and more socially cohesive. It gives people a focal point around which to form norms and mores. It creates social agreement about how one should live and what role one should play as an individual and a citizen. In their view, immigrants and newcomers are expected to leave their cultures behind and assimilate into the dominant culture. 

This is a fundamentally illiberal social arrangement, and that’s the point. Removing the ability for more than one culture to exist within a society mitigates the possibility of disruptions to the dominant culture. Rather than being individual-oriented (with the individual being the primary political unit),  monoculturalism is a power-oriented (with power and groups being the primary political unit) method of social and political organization that marginalizes alternative lifestyles and worldviews. 

All cultures are dynamic

But is monoculturalism more resilient than cultural pluralism? Can it endure both internal and external threats? Does it support its citizens in ways that enrich and strengthen them and the country in which they live? The evidence says no. 

A monoculture is necessarily less robust and less agile than cultural pluralism. For example, conservatives in recent years have fallen in love with an authoritarian Russia  — a state they believe to represent the monoculture they claim to strive for based on family, faith, and tradition. American advocates for such a culture ignore -- or don’t care about -- the repression and violence required to sustain such a culture. The deeply intolerant nature of a Russian-style social arrangement appeals to them. The fact that LGBTQ+, religious minorities, and other groups are often marginalized and persecuted is a feature, not a bug. As with all wannabe fascist types, they assume they will never fall victim to such a regime because they are members of the dominant group.

The idea of a monoculture also overlooks a fundamental feature of cultures: dynamism. Cultures are not fixed; they do not stay static over time. What’s more, even within a monoculture, subcultures necessarily emerge. Individuals — free or unfree — constantly shift relations and connections with others. Some cultures are stickier than others, with prominent features that are more long-lasting and difficult to erode or influence. Still, as individuals change and shift associations over time, the groups to which they belong also change. The underlying assumption of monoculture is that people can and should be controlled and forced to embrace the dominant culture or else.

The dynamism of pluralist societies presents another issue worth considering: what happens when people from cultures that do not adhere to liberal norms choose to migrate to liberal societies? Won’t those newcomers support illiberal policies and leaders as they assimilate? While on its face, this might seem like a real problem, it turns out that most individuals who are accustomed to more traditional beliefs that are orthogonal to liberalism either abandon their native cultures or adapt them to living in a multicultural society. As a percentage of the population, immigrants to the U.S. are far less violent and commit fewer crimes than members of the native “culture.” This is not to say that informal norms don’t persist and that illiberal practices occur that are not captured in official statistics, but it is not the case that the issue is pervasive and significant.

Use the tools pluralism gives us to fight illiberalism 

There is still the very legitimate question, however, of how we can avoid leaving people behind in moments of rapid social and cultural change. For a long time, the United States was a mostly WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant) nation. The institutions and norms that emerged from a population that largely shared similar values are rigid. Some who live in such societies view the past decade's rapid changes as a threat to both their worldview and place in the world. This concern is worth taking seriously.   If we just label a large segment of the population as bigots, we would simply be fighting intolerance with intolerance. Instead, we should embrace pluralistic principles by including those who feel left behind or threatened by societal change in the broader conversation. Indeed, a commitment to cultural pluralism gives us the tools to foster dialogue and understanding between the “old” dominant culture and the emerging “new” cultures. 

There are a lot of things that make encouraging a dialogue challenging, including culture wars, disdainful intellectuals, social media, and opportunists of all stripes. These distractions are counterproductive and do nothing to lead us to a better understanding of how to navigate this moment.  This opportunism may be good for ratings or fundraising, but it fosters nothing but hate and contempt. 

Until and unless we can tune out the noise and recognize this toxic arrangement for what it is, we’ll have a hard time establishing a dialogue that will go anywhere productive. Instead of feeding the outrage machine, we should all touch some grass. Those of us with kids need to remember that they follow our example. If we’re constantly consumed by the outrage of the day — whether it be a Trumpian outburst or new pronouns — then we’re teaching the next generation that their priorities should be set by demagogues and cynics. If, instead, we model behavior that emphasizes the importance of family, community, empathy, and curiosity, then we model behavior that gives them the agency to keep demagogues and cynics from living rent-free in their heads. This starts at the individual level and works its way out.

Threats to liberalism abound. Cultural pluralism has been in the crosshairs of illiberal thinkers and movements for years. The ramp-up in anti-pluralist rhetoric we’ve seen in the past decade should remind us that there is still much work to do. Fear and anxiety are not sustainable tools for social organization. Monoculturalism is a contradiction in terms and is fundamentally anti-individual and anti-liberal. 

Cultural pluralism gives us the tools to navigate rapid and difficult social and cultural change, but they only matter if we use them. Empathy is paramount. Patience and grace are required. Hard work is unavoidable. If we allow the tools we’re given to sit unused, we deserve what we get.