Fathali M. Moghaddam’s research while affiliated with Georgetown University and other places

Despite sustained efforts of social movements worldwide, there has been a lack of progress on mitigating climate change. Recent research examined the psychological consequences of one‐off collective action failures, but there has been little research on how to overcome persistent failure to create social change. This qualitative research ( N = 26) interviews leaders, founders, experienced advocates, and philanthropists from organisations ranging from direct action to environmental non‐governmental organisations in the Australian climate movement to gain insights into what they believe the movement needs to achieve its goals. Participants focused on strategies both internal and external to the movement. Our thematic analysis revealed two key internal themes: (1) strengthening the movement through movement building, diversity, and coalition building; and (2) building resilience and flexibility by gaining more resources, promoting well‐being, and developing more dynamic strategies and tactics. The three critical external themes were (1) speaking and acting ‘truth to power’ by addressing state capture and using government leadership; (2) achieving between‐system change by addressing economic systems and social norms; and (3) alignment with nature by respecting the natural world, incorporating climate disasters in communication programs, and expanding personal relevance. We discuss the applied and theoretical implications of our results. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's .

This chapter presents assimilation, the historically dominant approach to diversity management. In some important respects, assimilation is in line with key trends in globalization (and opposed to deglobalization). A distinction is made between minority-assimilation and melting-pot assimilation. Supporters of assimilation argue that it has important benefits, such as resulting in a society where people are more similar to one another, enabling similarity-attraction to take effect on a societal scale. Also, it is argued that assimilation better prepares people to create and take part in a meritocracy, since everyone who is assimilated shares the same culture and language. Supporters also argue that assimilation results in a common shared group identity, and leads to a more cohesive and peaceful society. These social and psychological benefits, it is argued, result in a society that is more economically productive and political cohesive.

Rather than getting distracted by surface differences between human groups, we should give priority to the deep similarities that all humans share. People are far more alike than they are different. Also, most genetic variation is found within rather than between populations. In the modern era, groups have highlighted their differences in part to justify their collective rights. Researchers have also climbed onto this ‘we are all different’ bandwagon, which endorses relativism. However, in a relativistic world, it is the weak and ethnic minorities who suffer most. Rather than abandon universals, we should make sure that the universals adopted actually reflect the interests of both majority and minority groups.

Omniculturalism begins with the simple observation that human beings are in foundational ways very similar to one another; we humans have more profound similarities than we have differences. In human relationships we should give priority to similarities rather than differences between people. But we should also acknowledge that humans are to some degree different from one another, but these differences should be treated as secondary and should not be given priority (as happens with multiculturalism). Omniculturalism is different from colorblindness, or ‘identity blindness,’ which involves ignoring group differences. Omniculturalism involves, first, active celebration of human similarities and, second, acknowledging that there are also some differences between human groups and individuals, and giving a secondary role to these differences. Omniculturalism is universalist and against relativism. In particular, integral to omniculturalism are universal human rights and duties. Omniculturalism is also in line with research findings on the common group identity model and superordinate goals.

Multiculturalism has become the dominant approach for managing diversity in many Western and also non-Western societies in the twenty-first century. The starting proposition is that people have the right to live in societies where all are supported on equal terms to retain their ethnocultural and other heritage group characteristics, including the heritage language. Second, ethnocultural groups are recognized by others as having equal worth relative to other groups. Third, group members are open to sharing their group cultures with outgroup members. Fourth, intergroup differences are recognized and celebrated. Fifth, their confidence in their own identities and cultures leads them to be open and accepting toward outgroup members who have different group identities and cultures. This is referred to as ‘the multiculturalism hypothesis.’ There is a sixth component that underlies all the first five: the claim that the government should support multiculturalism in both the public and private sectors, including in education.

Multiculturalism has a number of major flaws, and these are critically assessed in this chapter. First, underlying multiculturalism is the assumption that cultures are discrete, independent, and stable over time. Second, multiculturalism is based on relativism and the idea that the phenomena within each culture can only be evaluated through the value system and norms of that particular culture. This relativistic perspective has serious shortcomings, because it harms minorities within minorities (e.g., women in male-dominated cultures, where women do not enjoy equality). Related to this, third, it is assumed that minorities are motivated to retain their heritage cultures—but minorities within minorities (e.g., women in fundamentalist Islamic societies) are often motivated to escape their heritage cultures. Fourth, the priority given to celebrating differences is wrong and results in divisions and conflicts. Besides, humans are far more similar to one another than they are different. Fifth, the priority given to differences can sidetrack minority children from mainstream education. Sixth, the multiculturalism hypothesis, proposing that confidence and pride in the ingroup will lead people to be open and accepting toward outgroups, is highly questionable. Finally, the highlighting of cultural differences sidetracks from the growing inequalities in group material resources.

Omniculturalism represents an ideal in line with Kant’s categorical imperative and the Rawlsian perspective on justice. Omniculturalism is sharply different from the traditional approaches to achieving ‘one world’ and human unity: traditionally, major religions and ideologies argue that we shall achieve ‘one world’ when everyone else changes, ‘sees the truth,’ and becomes a member of ‘my group.’ This is human unity through conquest, and so far it has resulted in countless wars and continuing conflicts. Through omniculturalism, we recognize that the world already is interconnected because of deep similarities. We already are members of a common human group, humanity, with deep and important shared characteristics. What we need is a change in focus and priorities, from identifying, fabricating, exaggerating, and celebrating differences, to acknowledging and celebrating our foundational similarities as human beings. These commonly shared human features are inherent to all human beings, simply by their being human. This becomes evident when we consider the common features of world literature, as well as how we are able to travel and interact with others from different groups—even when we do not speak their languages.

In practice, assimilation has proven to have major shortcomings, and these are critically discussed in this chapter. The assumption that under all conditions increased contact between minority and majority group members would necessarily result in improved relationships between people is too simplistic, because it neglects the conditions set out by Gordon Allport. Despite the claims of some researchers, these conditions still apply in practice. There are also limits to the benefits of people becoming more similar to one another, as there is also a need for some level of distinctiveness. Also, research shows that differences between groups can be objectively trivial, and yet still result in intergroup bias. At the same time, becoming more similar within the ingroup has been accompanied by a greater emphasis on differences between nations. Very importantly, assimilation fails to address an important source of intergroup inequality and injustice: the concentration of material wealth and greater group-based inequalities in resources.

The debate about competing approaches to managing diversity is taking place in the context of fractured globalization, with macro factors (e.g., economics) pulling toward a global direction and micro factors (e.g., psychological needs) pulling us back to the local level. Advanced transportation and communications systems have resulted in the rapid movement of large populations of immigrants and refugees moving across national and regional borders. The result is that the newcomers experience sudden contact with host populations. Sudden contact raises the serious threat of decline for some groups, as the research on ‘language death’ demonstrates. Perceived outgroup threat has led to the rise of ethnocentric and extremist nationalism, associated with populist movements and support for strongman authoritarian leadership.