Academic multiculturalism is mistakenly based in assumed individualism between societies. Just as the individual, individuality, or self can be deconstructed, the integrity of individual societies can be deconstructed. Just as every individual with an inadequate perspective may argue for their sovereignty, each society with inadequate perspectives–including competing perspectives within each society–may present its own sovereignty. The limitations in agency and vision are analogous between individuals and any single society.
Comparing multiple societies, instead of contrasting currently dominant culture to any other single culture, highlights certain problems that develop with the individuality-method but does not provide comprehensive understanding. The way out of the competing-individuals mindframe includes progressing through greater openness and inclusion (currently “tolerance”) towards the establishment of more inclusive perspectives due to the willingness to relinquish the exclusions that define the current situation as conflictual.
Three factors influence avoiding that openness at this time. 1) Tolerance is a state of ambiguity, and ambiguity is stressful. Tolerance is insufficient and generally unpleasant, if more desirable than outright warfare. 2) Due to a lack of vision, developing one’s individuality can appear to be the same as losing one’s individuality. This fear of openness may arise when one cannot see concrete, beneficial steps in the way forward. But individuality only appears to be lost in openness when awareness is simultaneously lost in distraction, confusion, or being overwhelmed. 3) A reasonably sturdy but flexible vision has not been put forward yet, largely due to the influence of thinking that relies upon tolerance. Tolerance must be included but it is not a desirable goal except in the avoidance of war. Neither avoidance of war nor avoidance of openness produces adequate vision. Avoidance does not produce adequate vision.
In moving beyond a direct comparison between two individuals or cultures, psychodynamic triangles, arbitration, and systems theory arise out of (or rise into) multiplicity. This is a phenomenally important step because it is an attempt to get beyond dichotomous thinking. While systems theories can offer comprehensive (or total) explanations, they do not currently incorporate agency. Every system that describes or explains selects out the majority of detail. Uniqueness and potential can never be completely described. Life progresses; it cannot be boxed, but certain explanations may be helpful.
Agency and potential confound deterministic explanations, but tangible steps are important because wide-open ambiguity is stressful. Life progresses. As every individual ages, genuine individuality evolves. As individuals mature and interact with other maturing individuals, their capacity to choose–instead of stumble into–a diversity of interactions increases.
Based on technologies and worldwide communication, we are developing new virtual societies based on similarities in personality and experience–appreciation. While we may all have certain similarities, we won’t all be innovating breakthrough changes in the field of rocket science. So it may be easier and more interesting for the world’s top rocket scientists (for example) to have language differences translated rather than attempting to only train future rocket scientists who speak their native languages.
Even governments will eventually recognize that this is occurring. One of the influences that is helping bring about a broader awareness of this virtual society phenomenon is non-governmental organizations. If national governments cannot adjust, they will simply become obsolete to a great extent and deprioritized as their favorite media for delivering propaganda become deprioritized. (One such example is the obsolescence of the postal service. It hasn’t disappeared, but it is no Pony Express any more, no telegraph either. Television is also obsolete, but it may take a few years for everyone to realize that. Nonrenewable energy will eventually go the way of the dodo as well.)
These virtual societies–by whatever name we distinguish them–have their own customs, they are developing their own institutions and traditions, they are a consequence of our extreme specialization, and people within them naturally interact because they are not geographically and politically distinct. The members of these societies are members by choice and by appreciation of common pursuits. We are all members of many of these overlapping and interlocking societies. We are already living in a world where ethnic, gender, economic, cultural, and personal differences are accepted without question–even appreciated to the extent that many of us could not imagine or choose to live any other way. These virtual societies are allowing a greater expression of individuality at the same time that they are allowing a form of globalization that is not monolithically dominant. As we see culture communicated on increasingly massive scales, we will find greater complexity within ourselves and our societies.
We are currently trying to move from tolerance to appreciation while also trying to understand that (our) movement. The twentieth century taught us the impossibility of making all differences, similarities, and idiosyncracies explicit. We will not be able to say all there is to say between even two people–ever. We can view this as a problem, as a limitation of language or understanding, or we can happily recognize that each of us individually and all of us as a global entity have more potential than what we could ever possibly express. Perhaps our most striking common trait is the sheer amount of information, interest, and appreciation that we are swimming in without being aware of it. The question, then, is: out of all the potential you could choose to explore, where will you begin, what will you support, how will you use your attention, in what will you find your joy?
Copyright 2007 Todd Mertz