What beliefs do you have that you would die for? Would kill for? Not that you say you would, but that you actually would?
For most of us, the honest answer is probably “nothing.” This is our fundamental belief in tolerance.
At its core, liberal democracy is an ideology of tolerance. The fundamental concept is that diverse populations of people can democratically establish a “baseline” set of universal rules by which they can all abide, regardless of their specific personal beliefs.
Regardless of its many, many, many historical and contemporary shortcomings in practice, the theory of liberal democracy seems superficially sound. Assuming a true democracy and a respect for matters of subjectivity– namely, religion– liberal democracy entitles a society to self-determine the rules by which they live, as well as the right to practice their own beliefs as long as they are not affecting others.
In Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari presents a compelling narrative of how commerce served as the great uniter across cultural boundaries. Once an empire established a standard currency, it allowed reliable trade between groups with disparate beliefs; suspicions of “the other” were allayed by the threat of imperial force, and differences in cultural beliefs were tolerated to promote commerce. This commerce, in turn, fueled the dissemination of ideas and knowledge, and soon the great global collective was advancing human civilization at breakneck speed.
Well, except for during the Dark Ages. And except for parts of the planet where enslavement and genocide were more lucrative than commerce. But that’s not the point right now.
Traditional imperialism– invading armies and whatnot– demanded assimilation of the indigenous population into the conquering culture and religion. The native culture was plundered and then destroyed, and those who refused to abandon their beliefs were slaughtered. Where this was not the case, the conquerors’ reign did not last very long, because an oppressed culture will eventually reach a boiling point and coalesce into rebellion.
But the rise of commerce also saw the rise of modern imperialism– economic exploitation and cultural aspiration. This model did not demand explicit fealty to a faraway ruler or a new god; subjects could continue to worship and practice as they pleased, as their “benevolent” new rulers simply wanted to exchange goods and resources in a “mutually-beneficial” system with these “developing” nations. The subjects could either continue their traditional way of life or, preferably, be enticed into voluntary assimilation through the allure of consumerism and liberal ideals. Either way, the imperialist extracts their desired resources and retains superiority through systematic imposition of economic imbalance. But that’s not the point, either.
The point is that ethnicities and cultures have remained geographically segregated for most of history. Even in the largest metropolitan hubs and , ethnic groups typically remained homogenous in their own neighborhoods and interacted mostly for commerce, if at all.
Historically, multiculturalism has been a product of tolerance rather than of celebration. Cosmopolitanism is a recent enlightenment, driven by liberal beliefs in the validity of diverse cultures and universal human equality. And for the record, the Savior Self maintains that these are good things.
But of course, it is not without problems. Multicultural unity demands several things:
- That all participants subscribe to a consistent standard of tolerance, i.e. a complete embrace of liberalism
- That all participants accept a certain “dilution” of their personal culture and beliefs as it absorbs (and is absorbed by) other cultures
- That all participants concede that their specific faith is not the absolute truth
All three of these criteria present challenges, but it is the third one that may be insurmountable. Every major religion asserts that it is the single truth and the only path to eternal salvation; it is literally impossible to reconcile this assertion with a tolerance for other religions, particularly when your religion demands the slaughter of infidels or a literal interpretation of a fairytale book.
Thus, the two options for religious belief are fundamentalism and moderation. Fundamental religious belief will prohibit coexistence with other religions because even if the religion does not preach violence against non-believers, it does, by definition, create inequality between the saved and the heathens; such inequality will inevitably lead to conflict.
Conversely, moderate religious beliefs selectively choose which aspects of a religion are “true” and therefore do not really constiture religious belief so much as they are simply cultural norms… In other words, if your holy book as written by the one true lord God demands that you do not wear mixed fabrics and you decide that, “meh, blended cotton is really comfortable though”, you are not very invested in the divinity of that book, and your faith is either in yourself or in whatever human cherry-picked the beliefs of your particular church.
We moderates see the power of true belief when it inspires inconceivable acts, whether acts of religious terrorism. of patriotic torture, or of righteous self-immolation. Those who claim belief but lack the conviction to defend it or are unwilling to adhere to its demands are empty… or, as a more generous interpretration, have been taught a fundamentally incomplete definition of what belief really is.
The truth is that the vast majority of the population lacks any such true belief, and it is a consequence of liberalism. Even in most nations that ostensibly reject western liberalism– such as traditionally “moderate Muslim” countries in Central and Southeast Asia– we can observe a tolerance that is clearly a product of liberal ideology, in that tolerance will be tolerated in quantites that are too small to threaten the status quo.
We are conditioned to be docile and tolerant and centrist even in our most extreme positions, to regard “radicals” with disdain or reverence (depending on the threat of their ideology to the ruling class) but never to think that we should follow their lead. Liberal democracy and consumer capitalism bestow upon us a great many comforts, and all they ask in return is adherence to an ideology that robs any meaning from whatever beliefs we claim to have.
Previous ruling empires knew that heterogeneity is unstable, but they did not yet grasp the concept of illusory freedom and so they attained it through force. The triumph of liberalism is that homogeneity is achieved not by forcing everyone to hold a particular belief, but rather by eroding the very concept of beliefs until we feel like we’re free to believe what we want when, in fact, we don’t meaningfully believe in anything. The price of the belief in tolerance is that all other beliefs become superficial.
Capitalism complements this framework by fostering our sense of by selling us distinct identities so that we can drape ourselves in the dressings of our “beliefs”, because capitalism doesn’t care what you consume as long as you are consuming.
This homogeneity is, of course, beneficial to the continued technological advancement of our species… if heterogeneity is instability, then the inverse is also true. A population with no deep-seated ideology has less reason for conflict and is less willing to fight injustice, or at least less willing to sacrifice anything in the pursuit of justice.
And so the ideology of liberal democracy spread far and wide for several centuries, failing to penetrate only a handful of countries that it conveniently labels an . Society became globalized, tolerance became standardized, and the world’s cultures were largely homogenized thanks to consumer capitalism and the false portrait of happiness-cum-liberalism presented by pervasive pop culture entertainment.
So sure, the commodification of multiculturalism means a Muslim and a Jew can share a bowl of soba noodles anywhere in the Western world, but it also means the Buddha’s wearing blue jeans.
This erosion of belief has left us spiritually empty, alienated and dehumanized; Marx blamed this explicitly on capitalism, but the Savior Self contends that it is more directly a product of liberalism, with modern consumer capitalism attempting to mend the spiritual void with material salve.
However, the global population appears to be reaching its boiling point. Right-wing ideologies are increasingly taking hold across the world, fueled by ethno-nationalism and a pseudo-nostalgia for traditional values. Immigration, tolerance, and liberalism are blamed for the ills of the world, for crime and economic despair. This is largely opportunistic scapegoating by the ruling class, to keep the masses fighting amongst themselves rather than turning their gazes upward at the rich and powerful that are actually to blame.
But maybe there is something more behind it, something within the long-tempered human spirit that demands something to believe in– truly believe in— that has remained unsatisfied by the comforts of capitalism and the compromise of tolerance. Perhaps there remains a savage soul that rages against the dying of the light, a light that is primal and violent and willing to lay down its life in the defense of its illogical beliefs.
