Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik claimed in his online manifesto 2083 that multiculturalism is the core ideology of the left extremists he calls cultural Marxists. According to him, cultural Marxists include orthodox Marxists, suicidal liberals and capitalist globalists. He does not define multiculturalism but condemns it as the greatest threat to Western civilization and Christian Europe because it seeks to destroy them. This view is shared by an increasing number of people in the West.

Multiculturalism has become a global topic of political debate because practically every nation has to deal with this issue. South Korea is no exception. In order to understand the implications of multiculturalism for domestic and international politics correctly, we need to investigate first why multiculturalism has become a global topic of political debate and how nations have been trying to deal with this issue.

A dictionary defines multiculturalism as an ideology or policy that treats all ethnic, religious and cultural groups equally and does not promote the way of life of any group as the central and dominant one within a state and in the international arena.

Multiculturalism as a political ideology, not as a philosophical or cultural theory, can be classified into four models: the American, Chinese, Arab and African models. Of course, there are variations on them.

The American model has the following characteristics: denial of a permanent settlement of any ethnic, religious or cultural group in any particular region; denial of autonomy to any group or region; and permission of cultural diversity, but recognition of the central and dominant status to the European descendents, Western civilization and the English language.

The Chinese model, which is patterned on the former Soviet Union’s model, is basically the same as the American model with one major difference: Ethnic, religious and cultural groups historically connected to certain regions are granted some degree of autonomy. In the U.S. there is no indigenous ethnic or religious group except the American Indians, but in China there are 56 “nationalities” (ethnic groups) who settled in various regions as long ago as the Hans.

In the case of Arab states, two main sects of Islam, the Shia and the Sunni, make them religiously heterogeneous, and one sect dominates over the other. Power struggles between them determine the political fate of each nation.

Finally, most African countries suffer from tribal politics. The Western colonial territories became independent states, and consequently different tribes are forced to live in a single state. As in the Arab world, the power struggle among tribes in a country determines the political fate of each country. In both the Arab and African cases neither a mono-cultural state similar to a newly created state in the former Yugoslavia nor multicultural state similar to the American model will be feasible for a long time.

A country in which the majority rules is more likely to be stable than a country in which a minority group rules. On the other hand, countries based on the American model are more likely to be stable than countries based on the Chinese model because the sources of identity of the ethnic, religious and cultural groups in the former are weaker than in the latter. In countries patterned on the Arab and African models, sources of traditional identity are still strong and persistent. Eastern Europe is a good example. The degree of solidarity of these identity groups is influenced not only by the history of state formation but also by the degree of economic prosperity and equality.

All independent states, whether multicultural or not, seek a nation-state. This means that they recognize only one source of identity, the nation. That is called nationalism. Ethnic, religious and cultural groups are communitarian groups. They are inclined to seek to preserve their identity by maintaining political independence. No wonder why the dominant communitarian group in a multicultural state tries to control or suppress other groups.

In the age of globalization and liberal democracy previously mono-cultural states are becoming multicultural mainly for economic and ideological reasons. West Europe is the case in point; most West European countries are becoming American-style multicultural states. They accept foreign workers for labor shortage and sometimes adopt a liberal immigration policy for humanitarian reasons. Many people in the dominant group resent the influx of foreigners for fear of losing racial purity, cultural and religious identity and their dominant political position as well as for the feeling of racial superiority.

South Korea has similar problems. It is rapidly becoming a multicultural state. Korean nativism is the greatest obstacle to its smooth transformation into a multicultural state. A modified version of the American model can be the best strategy for smooth transformation. This model is basically a melting pot model with a relatively strict immigration policy.

Multiculturalism is a great threat to nativistic group identity. We should realize that multiculturalism is an opportunity as well as a challenge not only to the nation-state but also to the world. Can multiculturalism at the national level peacefully coexist with multiculturalism at the international level?

By Park Sang-seek 

Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. ― Ed.