In today’s world, multiculturalism is widely celebrated as a moral triumph of Western civilisation—a testament to our openness, tolerance, and social progress. Consequently, many European nations no longer define themselves by a specific ethnos, culture, or religion, but only by their embrace of diverse cultures, languages, and traditions. In this context, questioning multiculturalism often invites accusations of intolerance, racism, or backwardness.
Yet behind the inclusive rhetoric lies a troubling reality that’s becoming harder to deny: multiculturalism, by its very nature, struggles to offer a unified sense of identity or a shared foundation of values. In attempting to include everyone, it often fails to define what, if anything, binds everyone together.
This is not merely a theoretical concern—it is a real and present dilemma that plays out in our institutions, our communities, and our public discourse. Without a clear vision of what we stand for, we are left to define ourselves only by what we stand against. As such, multiculturalism is an inherently reactive posture: we extend acceptance indiscriminately, only drawing boundaries retroactively, once harm is done or conflict arises and only ever at an individual level.
Such a reactive stance leaves society morally adrift. We offer inclusion without distinction, without clear expectations or boundaries—only drawing moral lines after conflict forces us to say, “We don’t do that here.” Increasingly, this becomes the sole foundation of our identity. Western nations are now defined by a people who live in contradiction with each other and themselves. This approach breeds scepticism rather than unity and leaves us exposed to threats we fail to recognise until it is too late.
Naturally, multiculturalism weakens rather than strengthens social cohesion. It fosters moral confusion rather than clarity, and leaves us ill-equipped to confront ideologies or practices that threaten the very freedoms we cherish. In such a contradictory climate, tolerance becomes a hollow virtue—no longer an act of principled restraint, but a kind of dangerously passive indifference. Without a shared moral compass, tolerance loses its grounding. It becomes a refusal to judge at all, even when fundamental values are at stake. It is essentially indistinguishable from moral apathy.
For any society to thrive, it must rest on more than a vague commitment to coexistence. It requires a substantive foundation: a common understanding of the good, a willingness to draw moral lines, and the courage to uphold them. We need to rediscover who we are and what we stand for. Without this, diversity does not enrich—it fragments. And a society fragmented is a society that simply will not stand.
