In favour of cultural egalitarianism and the insistence to retain what is termed 'cultural heritage(s)', many researchers (philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, and others in the humanities) resist the views of critics from 'outside' their culture(s). Most of the time, the basis for the resistance of the critical and reconstructive demands/ views of the 'cultural-outsider' is akin to the central arguments of Thomas Nagel in his "What is it like to be a Bat?" The arguments of those who resist the contributions of the reconstructive critics from the outside is that every culture has its subjective uniqueness. This resistance is consolidated, at the surface, by the idea that cultures vary, that worldviews vary (some even argue that worldviews are incommensurable), and that as long as multiculturalism respects cultures and peoples - as the opposite of the principles that defined and sustained colonialism - then, it is the best approach to cultures.

However: granted that multiculturalism introduces mutual respect for/among cultures, I am wondering whether the same principle (multiculturalism) necessarily invalidates the framework that  sustains cross-cultural criticism/ evaluation. Should the merits of multiculturalism be stretched beyond mutual respect for cultures and people, to include a faulty assessment of every situation of cultural criticism as intentional cultural humiliation and attempt to re-enact cultural hegemony?

More Anthony Chinaemerem Ajah's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions