andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2018-03-28 12:00 pm

Interesting Links for 28-03-2018

danieldwilliam: (politics)

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-03-28 01:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Conflict or tension then?

I'm not sure that a monoculture *has* to be centrally enforced. Chomsky (IIRC) has a theory that the freer the society from central control the more the citizens indoctrinate themselves. If you are allowed to *do* whatever you can think of, then in order to protect your society from incoherent or dangerous actions you need people to indoctrinate themselves not to *think* in ways that are antitheical to your culture.

I think I would describe multi-culturalism as a situation where a) no one cultural tradition has it's moral assumptions privileged in to positive law, b) people are free to adhere to any cultural tradition they choose, or none,, c) people are able to adopt different aspects of different cultures, either as a hobby or as an attempt at cultural synthesis, d) many of the ground norms of society are about finding ways to disagree or explore differences without that becoming violent or existential for any group. I think that's someway torwards the idea of "cultural secularism" that you mention.

If you're explaination of where the OP is coming from is correctly then I think they are thinking of a number of mono-cultures cohabiting in the same physical or political space and competing in a zero-sum for both resources and the ability to turn their own (unexamined) moral assumptions in to positive law.