Unity in Diversity: Orientations and Strategies for Building a Harmonious, Multicultural Society

This essay addresses the question of how knowledge from social science can be used to guide the design of a harmonious, multicultural society. First, the broad characteristics of a viable multicultural society are presented. Such a society depends in part upon the orientations, both positive and negative, of its constituent members towards members of different cultural groups within that society. Discriminatory behavior at both the interpersonal and inter-group level is, however, potentiated or inhibited by group, organizational and societal norms, policies and laws concerning inter-group relations. Integrative individual and social factors thus combine to create inter-group social capital that promotes unity within diversity. Such a unity may be nurtured through careful attention to structuring inter-group contact, language policies, resource allocation, procedural justice, educational curriculum and methodologies. It is argued that these policies at the national level are applicable at the inter-national level and promote a global harmony that will reinforce harmonious multiculturalism within nations. My objective is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquility of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. (Baha’u’llah) In discussing the important emergence of global social change organizations, Cooperrider and Pasmore (1991) observed that, “So much of what is being said and done in our journals is beside the point, unrelated to the crucial questions of human relationships in a global era of unprecedented change. ” (p. 771)'. The emergence of new political states and their assertions of a distinctive identity is "I wish to express my appreciation to the following colleagues who provided thoughtful feedback on an earlier version of this paper: Steven Burgess, Seena Fazel, James Liu, Walter Stephan, and Harry Triandis. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.1998. 3.03 Unity in diversity: Orientations and strategiesfor building . 235 one manifestation of this epochal ferment (Naisbitt and Aburdene 1990, ch. 4). Many such states are young and enterprising enough to consider carefully the vision that will guide their nation-building and channel their selection of institutions, laws, and norms accordingly. This paper is offered in light of Cooperrider and Pasmore’s (1991) challenge to be relevant, in line with recent world developments, and the conviction that planned change is possible. I am a social psychologist. I have read widely in culture and cross-cultural interaction to help produce a recent text (Smith and Bond 1998), and have long held a keen interest in humane forms of association. These two parts of my personal history have led me to ask how the yield from our discipline’s labors can be used to design societies that are compatible with the presses and opportunities provided by the 21st century. In assuming this novel task, I will step outside my typical stance of purported objectivity and value-free analysis. I share what Cooperrider and Pasmore (1991) identified as, “something of a ‘hidden hunger’ among social theorists from throughout the world to make their lives and their workcount, and count affirmatively, as it relates to the questions of survival and human dignity in our time. ” (p. 779). Of course, many people share this hope for their labors in this life. Perhaps as social scientists, however, we are uniquely trained “to put idealism on empirical footing and to construct a science whose constructive mandate is to become a generativetheoretical partner with evolution itself, in the service of promoting the widest good and, ultimately, in the service of life. ” (Cooperrider and Pasmore 1991:780) Certainly we can address questions about the probable consequences of the value stances and procedures, or what I have called “orientations and strategies”, adopted by people, groups, organizations and nations. Awareness of these consequences can then be used to inform the consultation about what kind of social forms we wish to govern ourselves by as we structure our future. Our social scientific knowledge of persuasion techniques may even be used to ensure that awareness of these consequences figures in the consultation! Many other parties will be involved in this on-going dialogue, and it would be naive and presumptuous to expect that the inputs of our professional community will be specially privileged. Nonetheless, these consultations, in whatever forms they occur, must take the psychological, social, institutional, and national consequences of changes into account. And in these areas of intellectual discourse, we are plying our trade. In the following essay, I will try to articulate the considerations that I judge important to make in designing a harmonious, multicultural society. I will “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” by specifying and defending the end-state towards which I am hoping nations move and the procedures for attaining that end-state, but “render unto God what is God’s” by daring to specify and defend that end-state in the first place. Michael Harris Bond 236