The following article represents the personal view of the author Ms Aaliya Boakye, Research Officer at the Next Century Foundation. The conclusion differs from that expressed by the leadership and trustees of the NCF in recent years, some of whom would regard Ghana as an example of a multicultural society rather than a cosmopolitan society.
As it stands, various models for the cultural coexistence that underpins our world order are pursued across the international landscape. The most recognised being the integrationalism advocated in France, cosmopolitanism in Ghana, the open society approach in the US and multiculturalism in the UK. It is up for debate as to which model would best suit the entire global community to follow universally. While all these models may have proven successful in their respective countries, it is my view that multiculturalism exhibits the best results when compared to other options for world order and provides the best opportunity for creating a peaceful global society.
Integrationalism
Integrationalism is a model that invites individuals from other cultures to participate in a national society and integrates them into the community. This model, used in France, aims to successfully integrate immigrants into French society. It’s system of integration uses three main principles. Firstly, ensuring immigrants learn French, then teaching them the rules of the republic and finally integrating them into the workplace.
These guidelines for French integrationalism attempt to make immigrants into French citizens that can blend into society seamlessly. However, this makes the sharing of culture very one-sided, as all efforts are focused on assimilating immigrants into French society; ensuring they conform to French norms. While it is important for immigrants to integrate when settling into another country, this should go both ways in an exchange of cultures, so French society can also learn of new traditions outside of their own. France’s system of integrationalism focuses on citizenship and while this intends to ensure all individuals are treated equally, in practise this can have the opposite effect by making immigrants feel conflicted because they feel as if they have to choose between being a French citizen and their own cultural background. This choice should not be forcefully imposed upon people, immigrants should freely be able to embrace their cultures without fear of rejection from wider society.
While integrationalism has good intentions, ultimately it treats the cultural backgrounds of individuals as unimportant when this is a vital part of identity. Integrationalism encourages a colourblindness, in which societies ignore their differences instead of openly embracing them. Furthermore, this promotes French culture as being superior to any new cultures that enter its society. Therefore given the hyper-globalised state of the world, a world in which cultural exchanges are now normalised, integrationalism is an unsuitable model for a world order.
Whereas multiculturalism actually encourages a true mixing of cultures and recognises that no one culture is more important than another. Multiculturalism eliminates this superiority complex by ensuring all cultures are respected in the same regard. Therefore, with the global landscape including individuals from all cultures and traditions residing within the same communities, an inclusive world order that values all these cultures is vital.
Cosmopolitanism
Unlike integrationalism, cosmopolitanism does recognise that different cultures are of equal importance and no individual culture should be made to feel isolated. In this sense, cosmopolitanism refers to the idea that humans sharing a single community should be unified under a common morality and should fundamentally have respect for each other, despite their differences.
While in theory cosmopolitanism seems to promote peace between populations so they can coexist, in practise we see this cause instability. In Ghana, we witness Christian and Muslim populations exist within the nation peacefully. However, under a cosmopolitan model, this peace can only be temporary as these differing religious populations remain separated in their own regions and rarely mix. This means these communities will have made no real effort to understand the other and remain stuck in their own perspectives, allowing for disagreements to break out in extreme forms. In Ghana, this lack of communication led some Protestants to attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, which only destabilised the relationships to an even further extent; allowing religious contention to continue in Ghana.
Options for more peaceful forms of diffusing conflict are less likely to be used as these differing moral principles will clash because these different groups cannot understand each other’s perspective as they have never been encouraged to do so. Cosmopolitanism encourages communities to passively ignore their differences, but this is ineffectual when it comes to resolving conflicts.
Compared to integrationalism, cosmopolitanism does succeed in acknowledging the existence of other cultures and has equal respect for all, but this is as far as it goes. This respect communities have for each other, can only allow them to coexist peacefully temporarily and provides no solutions for when conflict arises, which can lead to national instability. Without being motivated to understand their differing perspectives, communities will be segregated from each other. This is not suitable for global order, as communities with different opinions often reside within the same areas, and with no prior attempts being made to understand the opinions of other cultures, this means arguments across the international domain will become more prominent. This understanding of various perspectives is fundamental to peace and harmony being sustained globally because understanding the rationale behind other people’s views can at best teach you something or can at least allow for greater cooperation between communities, even if they don’t necessarily agree with these opinions.
Philosopher Kwame Appiah states cosmopolitanism needs to be centralised around the idea of universalism, so people feel a genuine concern and responsbility for communities outside of their own. This would prevent a state of chauvism from arising, as seen within Ghana where we witness some cultures feel a superiority over others. Despite our individual differences and contrasting identities, as people we all share a common humanity so with this focus the whole of society can be unified regardless of cultural differences.
I value this stance made by Kwame Appiah, however a multiculturalist approach is more suitable for world order than cosmopolitanism, as it automatically encompasses this aspect of universalism he speaks of. Multiculturalism compensates for the shortcomings of cosmopolitanism by going beyond populations with differing views having solely a mutual respect for each other, and actually encourages these people to teach each other so they can learn and expand their views. This promotes the best version of inclusion as it allows people to not only see cultures different to their own but actually understand them. As previously stated, it is crucial to any society that wishes to achieve long lasting peace that people are at least willing to hear the logic of perspectives outside of their own as this can allow for tensions to be diffused through open dialogues. Multiculturalism allows for diplomatic means to be a first resort for communities in the result of a conflict, whereas cosmopolitanism often allows for chauvinism to further fuel tensions between communities with different cultural views.
Open society
Open society is the model most similar to multiculturalism. It lays a particularly strong emphasis on freedom of speech where every individual can freely express themselves. The main difference between these concepts is that open society has an enhanced focus on individual liberties and equal participation for all whereas multiculturalism emphasises the recognition and preservation of distinctive cultural identities.
The most notable example of an open society is the United States of America, a nation that prides itself on being a society “of the people, by the people and for the people”. The political rights of all individuals are enshrined within the US constitution. A right entrenched in the constitution is extremely difficult to overturn. This has only been achieved 27 times since 1789. Therefore the principle of freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right that any individual, regardless of their cultural background, can access. The main focus of open society on political enfranchisement for all individuals would be a positive reflection if replicated across the globe in a new world order.
Advocate for multiculturalism, Kwame Appiah, states society would greatly benefit from a combination of open society and multiculturalism. Saying that a pluralistic societal culture comprised of various identities, while also highlighting the importance of civil liberties and political rights of all individuals would fulfil the requirements for a peaceful society.
While this concept of open society admirably focuses on the political rights of individuals, ensuring all people have their liberties respected to the same degree, ultimately this concept was inspired by multiculturalism. I believe multiculturalism still remains the best international model because it focuses on cultural exchanges and community engagement but most importantly it truly recognises all cultures and individuals as equal socially. This makes all communities and individuals feel truly heard and welcomed into national communities, this allows for the happiest societies. It is admirable that the concept of open society places political liberties at its forefront but for a successful global order, social recognition of cultural equality must be established before political rights can be ratified. Unless the complete equality of individual rights and cultures is understood and accepted on the social level, this cannot find success at the political level successfully due to backlash and confusion from those communities support hasn’t been garnered from. While I do acknowledge and somewhat agree with the position that Kwame Appiah brings up, ultimately his stance centralises multiculturalism as the form of world order that can bring about inclusivity and peace, with concepts of open society simply complimenting pre-existing multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism is the complete embracing and celebration of different cultures within a single society. It not only makes spaces where new cultures can exist and learn from each other but also ensures that new cultures introduced to society are preserved.
While I firmly believe that multiculturalism is the model that has the best chance of succeeding on the international stage, this model can only be effective if national communities have a genuine willingness to accept diverse cultures and traditions in their entirety. This is the main barrier multiculturalism faces as strong devotion to national values by individuals can lead to resentment towards different cultures and a complete rejection of them in extreme ways. For example, in recent years, the UK has seen rising popularity for Reform UK. With them receiving just over four million votes that translated into 14.3% of the overall vote share in the 2024 election and gaining 5 seats in the House of Commons. This growing support for a party that endorses anti-immigration policies, displays a rejection of multiculturalism by a minority in the UK.
Shortly after in the Summer of 2024, we witnessed terrifying scenes as anti-immigration rhetoric lead to violent outbursts against ethnic minorities. These protests continued for six days in the UK, lasting from July 30th to August 5th. What sparked these riots was the stabbing of three young girls in Southport by Axel Rudakubana. However, due to the failure of the press, the police and the government to be forthcoming with information on the identity of the assailant, misinformation and false speculation quickly spread around social media, with assumptions that the suspect was of Muslim faith and was an asylum seeker who arrived to the UK by boat in 2023. This spurred rioters to attack the accommodations of asylum seekers, local mosques and loot shops believed to belong to owners of minority ethnic origin. In the end, eight hundred people were arrested for crimes including: inciting racial violence, disturbing public peace, racially aggravated criminal damage and racially aggravated harassment and the publishing of written material intended to stir racial hatred. Although Rudakubana was in possession of ISIS training manuals, much of the rhetoric that spurred these riots in the first place was incorrect and ultimately should not have led to such vile displays of hatred towards innocent communities. However, these riots were met with much larger rallies calling for dispersal and peace, hopefully showing the support for multiculturalism in the UK is much greater than its opposition.
Therefore, as previously stated, without open-mindedness and a strong willingness to learn about other cultures, multiculturalism may struggle to be fully implemented. While it remains true that multiculturalism may result in backlash from a minority, I still believe it is the best alternative compared to other world models because it allows for honest cultural exchanges to occur, which cultivates open discussions between peoples with vastly opposing opinions to understand the rationale behind other perspectives. Although this may not result in complete agreement, at the very least, this will ensure that communication is the first resort when conflict arises as understanding is found. Most importantly, multiculturalism recognises the diversity of mixed communities so every individual can feel welcomed and confident embracing their cultural traditions without judgement. In my opinion these are the optimal conditions in which proper diplomacy can thrive to reduce conflict and find solutions suitable to all.
Final Remarks
I believe that multiculturalism is the best model for world order because it is the only model in which new cultures introduced to society are protected and preserved. This aspect of sustainability is vital to an inclusive society that unifies peoples into a community. Other world models are less suitable for our current world order. Integrationalism makes incoming cultures feel inferior to the existing culture and forces the assimilation of immigrants, essentially erasing their cultural background. Cosmopolitanism, while is a step forward from integrationalism by encouraging respect for all cultures so they can coexist, is not suitable because it only creates temporary periods of peace and also marginalises communities with different cultures from each other. Finally the open society model is not far off from multiculturalism and has the potential to be successful as a form of world order because of its dedication to ensuring the political rights of all individuals are maintained. I would like to draw attention to Kwame Appiah’s stance for incorporating elements of open society into multiculturalism, as this has the potential to maximise cultural inclusion and enforce this with entrenched political rights for all peoples.
However, in my opinion multiculturalism provides the best opportunity for peaceful world order because first and foremost it establishes recognition of cultural background and equality for all socially, before taking this to the political level. This order is important because the equality of all cultures needs to be widely understood by all of society, otherwise this risks being completely rejected by a loud majority of society. Therefore, as multiculturalism accepts, respects, teaches and preserves all cultures, it has the best opportunity to succeed as an international order in a world that is hyper-globalised.
