Page 45 [45]
What can I know (if trust in knowledge has been lost)? | 43
instance the spread of Buddhism, Islam or the Enlightenment) of a
culture has been thought to occur when a people’s topics of cultural
dialogue and the symbolic frames of interpretation determining possible
topics changes. Yet nothing characterises the current — mostly Western
— proponents and ideologues of multiculturalism less than the desire to
spread Western values. The politically correct way of speaking
compulsory at universities and in the media expressly forbids anyone to
claim priority for these. ‘The only idea of European origin that they
demand from everyone is the extreme relativism of values (falsely)
derived from the equality of freedoms and which in reality renders
dialogue among cultures impossible. For substantive dialogue and
mutual respect are only possible in knowledge of the differences,
between parties who are equally convinced of the meaning and
importance of the differences they argue for. As for “fusion”, cultures
are not capable of this within a short space of time any more than
languages are: a series of sounds only possesses an identifiable meaning
in one particular language. The fusion of dictionaries and grammars
takes centuries at the least, yet currently it appears that there is no
serious attempt at either the meaningful dialogue or the unification of
the various cultures. In contrast with the centuries of cultural
imperialism, it seems that we do not want to baptise, secularise,
democratise or enlighten the peoples whom we have convinced to adopt
our way of life and technological achievements. So, what do we want
from them?
‘The ruling culture is always the culture of the rulers, the connected
system of certain interpretations of the world which sanction the given
mode of power. In this there is no change. Multiculturalism — in contrast
with its historical antecedents — is the ideology of a power which is not
legitimised by an interpretation of the world but rather by the application
of the means and procedures upon which the survival of the system
stands or falls. The new world order and its beneficiaries are not
interested in gaining acceptance for a particular cultural software, but
rather merely in selling the hardware. ‘This is most likely the explanation
for globalisation’s particular nature.