Multiculturalism Or Intercultural Dialogue Analysis

Truth or Surrender

Defining what is true can be a source of debate and conflict for many depending on the lenses one is looking through. Some prefer to remain ignorant of the world around them and stay in their own bubble of their own self-made truth and security, while others tend to think truth should be embraced and accepted by all. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes is the real truth, the truth that many know in their hearts, yet still refuse to believe. In the article “Multiculturalism or Intercultural Dialogue?” by Rev. Ronald M. Ketteler, he illustrates the differences of how people of different cultures view truth and the ultimate problem concerning their approach to truth. The problem with the real truth is the narcissistic society that chooses to think their way is better: either they live their own way regardless of others, or try to get others to adapt to their way of thinking, however, knowing the real truth would show both of these ways are “judged

to be incomplete.”
In an attempt to educate Catholic schools on Intercultural dialogue, the Vatican congregation released a document called “Living in Harmony for a Civilization of Love.” This document spoke of “several multicultural approaches to pluralism in society.” Two of these approaches were said to be incomplete, “relativism and assimilation.” The approach of relativism focuses on every culture functioning autonomously, minding their business. They remain within their own sphere of truth as they have made it to be, regardless of other interpretations of the truth. They are narcissistic in that they live according to their own rules, and operate under relativistic neutrality, meaning there is no right or wrong. They do not seek to engage with others or even seek to interpret others ideas. They tend to be closed minded in this respect. This is an example of a piece of behavior which is observed, not based on personal knowledge, but observation of what they have deemed right or wrong within their own culture. Assimilation is the other approach that was deemed to be incomplete. In contrast, this approach “demands that persons of a different culture simply ‘adapt’.” They believe they should forsake their own cultural beliefs and take on those of the receiving country. These two approaches to pluralism are judged to be incomplete because it does not allow for cultures to co-exist or respect the differences between them, but fosters their narcissism for only their own cultures.
This may seem plausible to those whose truth is followed, if it is their culture, but Pope Benedict XVI had a different insight into relativism and assimilation.

He pointed out the flaws of these two models as a failure to “define humanity ‘within a nature that transcends them’”, stating that these approaches “separate ‘culture from human nature’.” The “crisis of the truth” that he speaks of refutes the idea that right and wrong, good and evil, are knowable by human reason. The truth of right and wrong comes from human nature and reasoning, but these approaches to a “civilization of love” and the intercultural approach hinge on individuals determining their own right and wrong and living accordingly. Ironically, the real truth of “Living in harmony for a civilization of love” is synonymous with justice, church social doctrine, solidarity, social charity, and a foundation of peace. All of these things are in direct contrast to the approaches mentioned in the Declaration on Christian

Education.
Other issues are also wrapped up in the idea of multiculturalism or intercultural dialogue, known as “culture wars”. This is a deeper issue rooted in the philosophical principles of ethics, for example: abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide. Michael Sandel, a well-known political philosopher, views “justice as a matter of choice, not fit.” This implies that persons are no longer bound by “moral ties” or good human reasoning, but are free to be reprobates, choosing themselves and their own ideas. However, freely choosing selves and not considering others is not necessarily freedom.
Freedom as described by George Weigel is a combination of the distinction between plurality and pluralism. Plurality is defined as a “sheer difference: a sociological fact”, meaning everyone is different and unique, all the while sharing the same space and air. Pluralism on the other hand is society working together for the common good. Discussions take place about morals, virtues, right and wrong, which aids in the making of a democratic society. People can co-exist, have differences of opinions, and yet agree on a common good, which is knowable by human reason. Pluralism can be a good thing to help a culture or society “cultivate its own traditions and values”, but they must share “common convictions….common standards of decency…or they will not agree on what is right and wrong, losing their ability to reason with one another. This is an example of the objective significance of behavior, culture and society determines what is right and makes judgements accordingly, based on their own reasoning. This is why moral truth is important to grasp in multicultural arenas, otherwise freedom for all is a farce, for someone must surrender their beliefs in order for another one’s to be exalted.
Those who stand for moral truths and are “proponents of life issues” are seen as “fundamentalists and potential totalitarians.” The irony is that as Centesimus Annus warned, “a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.” This is much like the pot calling the kettle black. In a dominant relativism, society chooses to ignore human reasoning and convictions. Instead they base truth on majority decisions of like-minded people or whatever the current trend may be. In contrast, those who stand for truth typically do not waiver in their convictions but believe in their heart what is true and right.
Those who believe in moral truth are threatened with the merging of democracy and ethical relativism. This would blur the lines of right and wrong, potentially cause wavering, and a strong encouragement to surrender one’s beliefs and “assimilate” to the new culture and political trends. The loss of moral truths would result in the loss of freedom. As vast as the universe, and as unique as each culture is, human values and reasoning are the same. Those who seek to elevate themselves and their own agendas only cause the loss of human spirit, dignity, and a loss of respect for each other. The idea of relativism and assimilation is not enough to cultivate a “civilization of love”, for the moral truths are where true freedom lies. This is the subjective significance of behavior, for only God alone can know and judge the true intention of the heart, attributing guilt or culpability for their sin.