Multiculturalism
6 Aug, 2025 at 09:58 | Posted in Politics & Society | 2 Comments
When a liberal society faces the question of granting special privileges, immunities, and political autonomy to one cultural group … it cannot compromise on fundamental human rights. Furthermore, those who understand liberal democracy as itself a way of life grounded in a distinct moral faith cannot in good conscience agree to allow schools or the government to suppress the democratic way of growth and transformation. The democratic way conflicts with any rigid idea of, or absolute right to, cultural survival. The democratic way means respect for and openness to all cultures, but it also challenges all cultures to abandon those intellectual and moral values that are inconsistent with the ideals of freedom, equality, and the ongoing cooperative experimental search for truth and well-being. It is a creative method of transformation. This is its deeper spiritual and revolutionary significance.
Steven C Rockefeller
Culture, identity, ethnicity, gender, and religiosity should never be accepted as a basis for intolerance in political and civic aspects. In a modern democratic society, people belonging to these different groups must be able to rely on society to protect them against the abuses of intolerance. All citizens must have the freedom and right to question and leave their own group. Against those who do not accept this tolerance, we must be intolerant.
In Sweden, we have long embraced multiculturalism. If we mean by multiculturalism that there are several different cultures in our society, this does not pose a problem. Then we are all multiculturalists.
However, if we mean that cultural identity and affiliation also entail specific moral, ethical, and political rights and obligations, then we are discussing something entirely different. Then we are talking about normative multiculturalism. And accepting normative multiculturalism also means tolerating unacceptable intolerance, as normative multiculturalism implies that the specific cultural groups’ rights may be given higher priority than the citizens’ universal human rights — and thus indirectly become a defence for these groups’ (potential) intolerance. In a normative multiculturalist society, institutions and regulations can be used to restrict people’s freedom based on unacceptable and intolerant cultural values.
Normative multiculturalism, like xenophobia and racism, means that individuals are reduced unacceptably to being passive members of a culture or identity-bearing group. But tolerance does not mean that we must have a relativistic attitude towards identity and culture. Those who, in our society, show in their actions that they do not respect other people’s rights cannot expect us to be tolerant of them. Those who use violence to force other people to submit to a specific group’s religion, ideology, or ‘culture’ are themselves responsible for the intolerance they must be met with.
In Sweden, all women and men have equal value. And everyone living in Sweden must respect this.
Sweden is an open country, part of the global community. But it is also a country that firmly asserts that the gains we have achieved in terms of equality, openness, and tolerance over centuries are non-negotiable.
People who come to our country enjoy these rights and freedoms. But with these rights and freedoms also comes an obligation. Everyone — without exception — must also accept that in our country, there is one law — the same for everyone.
Rule of law.
If we are to safeguard the achievements of a modern democratic society, society must be intolerant towards people and organisations that promote intolerance. In a modern democratic society, the rule of law must prevail — and apply to everyone!
Against those in our society who seek to force others to live according to their own religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs and taboos, society must be intolerant. Against those who want to compel society to adapt laws and regulations to the interpretations of their own religion, culture, or group, society must be intolerant.
Cultural heritages and the forms of life articulated in them normally reproduce themselves by convincing those whose personality structures they shape, that is, by motivating them to appropriate productively and continue the traditions. The constitutional state can make this hermeneutic achievement of the cultural reproduction of life-worlds possible, but it cannot guarantee it. For to guarantee survival would necessarily rob the members of the very freedom to say yes or no that is necessary if they are to appropriate and preserve their cultural heritage. When a culture has become reflexive, the only traditions and forms of life that can sustain themselves are those that bind their members while at the same time subjecting themselves to critical examination and leaving later generations the option of learning from other traditions or converting and setting out for other shores.
