Multiculturalism vs cosmopolitanism

by John Thompson

06/09/03

Today, it is an article of faith that Canada is a multicultural society. It might be best if we recognized our real legacy — that of a cosmopolitan people.

There are profound differences between a multicultural and a cosmopolitan society. For a start, multiculturalism is based on preserving inherent differences while cosmopolitanism is based on bridging them. Multiculturalism implies separate and real (or assumed) status based on collectivism - groups of people having power because of their background and associations. Collectivist power may not always be shared equally (and rarely is) or proportionately, but it depends on group identities.

"Cosmopolitan" is a word shaded by many more meanings than tend to be imputed to "Multiculturalism". In its most widely accepted usage it implies a worldliness, or a readiness to accept different influences. There is the automatic and inherent concession to tolerance, whereas multiculturalism automatically concedes division.

In a multicultural society, issues of racism or bias invariably summon political figures whose power-base depends upon division. This contrasts with the cosmopolitan tendency to consider division to be rude and unworldly. One society keeps picking its wounds open, the other lets them heal over. One is healthy and the other is not.

Multicultural societies do exist. In recent memory, Lebanon was one such society, as was Yugoslavia and the USSR. The South Africa of the Apartheid-era was a multicultural society where power was very unevenly shared. Multicultural societies are not necessarily doomed to failure, but it is hard to think of one that has withstood the test of time. Like a ceramic vase, a collectivist society need not fall off the mantelpiece too many times to shatter.

Cosmopolitanism is a sign of a strong society. It reflects the presence of a dominant group that can tolerate the presence of the un-acclimatized and newcomers. In Canada's case, the dominant group is mainly - not exclusively - drawn from European ancestry, and mostly from a Christian tradition. Their tolerance depends on a commonality of institutions and ideas, and a feeling that the common values are respected.

Generally, cosmopolitan societies do not concede political power to minorities, as ethnic distinctions are presumed to be of little account in comparison to being a member of the wider polity. Every human being does tend to place some importance on an identity based on degrees of "us" and "them" - including those who substitute class or political divisions for ethnic ones. So degrees of bias and racism will always exist, but a cosmopolitan society lacks the automatic fracture lines that exist in a multicultural one. Moreover, a cosmopolitan person is assumed to be relatively tolerant of ethnic and racial differences.

The success of Canada's multicultural mythology since "official" multiculturalism was implemented has so far rested on a deeper cosmopolitan tradition, but the success of the myth is no longer guaranteed. Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism have only a superficial resemblance, the real differences are quite deep and the split is becoming visible.

More importantly (and to mix metaphors), a cosmopolitan society takes time to simmer, and to gently let each new ingredient support the base of the stew and while adding to all of the other flavors. If too much is dumped in, too fast, the results are unpleasant. Canada currently has the highest immigration rate in the world. While total assimilation is neither desirable nor necessary - everyone must accept the common and shared aspects of society. Our high rate of immigration limits this.

The great societies of history often had a cosmopolitan nature. The Roman Empire was cosmopolitan - while an unequal multicultural structure contributed to the collapse of the Roman Republic. London, at the zenith of the British Empire, was cosmopolitan. The Hapsburg's Austro-Hungarian Empire is being re-examined by scholars as a golden age. The Mongols and early Islam were cosmopolitan. (Indeed, Muslims were once more tolerant than their European contemporaries.) The Ottoman Empire was a cosmopolitan one, and modern Turkey remains straddled between Europe, Islam and the Turk's own unique heritage. The Athenians, while not strictly a cosmopolitan society, certainly had open minds. Canadian multiculturalism purveyors identify the United States as a "melting pot" and an example to avoid. Yet it is the greatest society the world has yet seen and has a long cosmopolitan tradition.

Canada can dispense with multiculturalism. In its place, we can embrace our single political heritage and the common aspects of our culture, and then celebrate our differences. If we do this, we will truly be an example to the World, and just perhaps the 21st Century will belong to Canada.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca