Diversity

Even before the Cold War, since the Industrial Revolution itself, people had been defining themselves and others on the basis of economic parameters. Later, Marx gave it another dimension through his critical class theory. However, it did not take the world long to realize how shallow these considerations were. The First World War, and then without much delay the Second World War, forced all wellmeaning people in the world to think differently. Since then, the world has been emphasizing cultural factors and cultural rights more than the economic. Indeed, cultural interests are more important and relevant than economic interests in the human existence. It became clear that humanity cannot move forward based solely on economic and political treaties and agreements. That is how the United Nations Organization and UNESCO came to be formed.

However, the intellectual and social change commonly known as the "cultural turn" occurred almost two decades later, in the 1960s. It was during this time that the thought that the most valuable assets of a society, the "soft power" that determined, sustained, and enabled it to survive are not material possessions, but rather the symbols, signs, values, and stories that are proper to that society, got emerged.

Thus, humans returned to their cultural treasures. As a result, expressions of cultural identities gradually became part of social life. In such a cultural environment that began to express differences among people, the primordial hates and fears in humans also began to show forth. Consequently, hate speech and violence against religious and cultural identities began to rise. Not only have such things not come to an end today, but we are even left with suspicion whether it is reaching the peak.

Against this backdrop, it seems that there seems to be in the world at least three approaches to expressions of religious/cultural identities.

Some people believe that if in a country or society, whichever religious/cultural group has dominance in terms of population, theirs should be the land, and that other religious/cultural groups should remain subordinate to them. They think that this approach is most reasonable and practical. In that case, majority rules and the basic democratic values would be non-existent. And there would be no fraternity, equity or equal justice.

In some countries all expressions of religious/ cultural identity are banned in all public places by law: that's another approach. They think that the society would become externally secular, although inwardly it may not be. There is no doubt that such a society will outwardly manifest fundamental equality. However, even there, the values of democracy and fraternity are sacrificed.

Both the above approaches are easily implemented. However, they do not make humans better human beings or make any advancement to humanity. Moreover, they would nullify the social and cultural ideals that humanity has achieved thus far. Only when we commit to being renewed in mind will we become more cultured humans. The way forward for us is to accept, embrace, love and respect the cultural diversity. The water and manure that each community received from the land where it sprouted and flourished have given them their unique colors, shapes and fragrances. Each of them is a manifestation of the diversity God has placed in the created universe. Each of them is a priceless cultural treasure. Each one is making invaluable and unique contributions to the common good and prosperity of the world. Together, they make the garden of Earth beautiful and rich with its diverse colors and shapes!

I believe that only in a society that acknowledges, accepts, embraces, and respects diversity, democratic values will flourish and as fraternity grows, equal justice will come about.