---------------------------------

Peter asked:

This is not really a philosophy question, or not at the level I intend it anyway, but philosophers are
good with definitions and meanings so I'll ask it.

If 'society' implies, or depends on, a shared culture (culture in its widest sense), as I suspect we all
feel it must, and if 'multicultural' suggests a multiplicity of cultures, as I suspect we all feel it must,
then is not 'multicultural society' an oxymoron? Has political correctness, or a well meaning attempt to
be inclusive, led us into meaningless doublespeak and another example of the use of grammatical
tricks to save us facing deeper issues?

More generally is it reasonable to say that a key task in philosophy, a key element in any definition of
philosophy, is the rooting out of conceptual and grammatical conflicts of this kind, if such it be?

============

A key task for philosophy is rooting out and exposing fallacious arguments: yours is an instructive
example.

"If 'society' implies, or depends on, a shared culture (culture in its widest sense), as I suspect we all
feel it must...." For there to be such a thing as a society, there must be somethingthat the members
of that society have in common, in virtue of which they are able to identify themselves as members of
that society. That is all you can reasonably claim to be self-evident, or, as you put it, something 'we all
feel' to be necessary. But whether that shared factor is a common nature,or interests,or purpose—
or, as you claim, culture — is far from being self-evident. It is a question that bears close examination.

In order to show that the argument you have advanced is fallacious, however, it is not necessary to
give a full and complete answer to that question. That would require a book. It is sufficient that we can
point out possible ways in which diverse cultural groups could perceive themselves as belonging to,
having a stake in, a single all-inclusive society. One of the most important and obvious ways is
through inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue. (An argument of exactly similar form to the one that you
give could be used to 'prove' that the very idea of an inter-denominational religious service is a
conceptual confusion. That ought to make you pause.) Another way is through political action on a
local level. Think of what would be involved, for example, in a community consisting of diverse
cultural groups setting up a Neighbourhood Watch scheme to combat burglary and street crime, or
getting together to tackle problems with drugs and prostitution.

There are many persons of different ideological persuasions who believe in the possibility of a
multi-cultural society as an article of political faith. I would include myself in that large and diverse
group. I am not saying that we should not accept the challenge to provide arguments in support of
that belief. It is healthy that we should debate the issue, and not allow it to become unthinkingly held
political dogma.

Geoffrey Klempner