Multiculturalism and Transnationalism

Wilber's View

Wilber reads both multiculturalism and the push toward transnational institutions as symptoms of a developmental transition rather than as free-floating political programs — a direct extension of the developmental-stages argument he builds with Habermas in The Dialectic of Progress. On transnationalism: he argues the global commons, world financial systems, and international security have become structurally transnational crises that "no longer respond to actions taken merely on the part of individual nations," but insists — against purely technocratic readings of globalization — that no material-economic fix can work without a "corresponding change in consciousness" among citizens willing to surrender some national sovereignty, which he frames as requiring worldcentric (egoic-rational, moving toward vision-logic) awareness rather than tribal or mythic-imperial identity.

On multiculturalism his argument is more polemical, and it's the more interesting half of the page. He credits the movement's actual tolerance and pluralism as a genuine achievement, but argues it's self-contradictory on its own terms: multiculturalism claims to reject "logocentric, rational-centric" dominance while its capacity to tolerate other worldviews is itself rational through and through (only rational, perspective-taking pluralism can hold space for views it disagrees with) — he calls this a "misidentif[ication of] its own stance." His sharper charge is that multiculturalism collapses "no perspective is final" into "all perspectives are therefore equal," which is a non sequitur that erases the very judgment (rational pluralism is better than ethnocentric intolerance) the movement needs to justify its own tolerance in the first place. This is a real logical point worth taking seriously — but it's also worth noting Wilber states the multiculturalist position in a fairly uncharitable form to make the contradiction land; a more careful multiculturalism might hold "no perspective is final in an absolute, view-from-nowhere sense" without thereby denying that some perspectives are more adequate than others, which is closer to what Wilber himself wants to say. The critique is sharpest against a strawman version of relativism and less devastating against multiculturalism's more careful defenders.

In Sex, Ecology, Spirituality

The point is that all three of those concerns no longer respond to actions taken merely on the part of individual nations. Not one of those problems can be solved on a national level. They are literally transnational crises demanding transnational, worldcentric responses.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

…none of those physical and material and economic components can be secured in the long run without a corresponding change in consciousness among the citizens of the nations surrendering some of their sovereignty for the transnational good.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

The "multicultural movement," which claims a universal tolerance of all cultures freed from the "logocentric, rational-centric, Eurocentric" dominance and hegemony, is a step in the right direction, with all good intentions, but ends up being self-contradictory and finally hypocritical.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

In other words, multiculturalism is a noble, logocentric, and rational endeavor that simply misidentifies its own stance and claims to be not rational because some of the things it tolerates are not rational. But its own tolerance is rational through and through, and rightly so.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

In other words, the "multicults" regress from "no stance is ultimate" to "every stance is equally acceptable," thus burying (and denying) their own otherwise accurate judgment that lesser stances and smaller perspectives are unacceptable.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

Thus, that everything is relative does not mean nothing is better; it means some things are, indeed, relatively better than others, all the time.

— Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, ch. 5

See Also

• The Dialectic of Progress — the developmental-stages argument (also built with Habermas) this page's reading of both movements depends on
• Jürgen Habermas — co-source, with Wilber, of the stages-of-social-evolution framework both multiculturalism and transnationalism are read against
• Wilber on Postmodernism — the closely related critique of relativism-as-nihilism this page's multiculturalism argument shares its logic with
• vision-logic — the postformal stage Wilber says both movements are reaching toward but haven't fully arrived at
• waves-and-streams — the developmental-stage vocabulary ("worldcentric," "egoic-rational") this reading is built on