Diversity is broadly understood to be a valued trait in most cosmopolitan societies. We imagine a vibrant scene, where different ideas meet, blending harmoniously in one big cultural melting pot. Mental images of cities like New York, London and Tokyo – global epicentres for commerce and the arts – might come to mind, for these are places known to be especially accepting of differences; where the odd and unconventional would be celebrated, not derided.

Singapore, with its unique cultural blend of ethnic Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians, is home to an increasingly diverse populace, punctuated with national efforts to attract immigrants through an “open-door” policy. A greater population mix would suggest richer cultural offerings and experiences for the city’s inhabitants. Yet, cultural diversity in itself is no promise of a cosmopolitan society.

At Singapore’s National Day Rally 2009, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong raised examples of day-to-day intercultural disputes, such as a quarrel between a Malay family and a Chinese family over the use of common areas in government housing estates. Then there are other petty displeasures over culturally insensitive matters, like dog hair, joss sticks, stray ashes and noise - things that may seem innocuous, but if left unchecked, without “good sense and tolerance by all sides”, conflicts will ensue.

Tensions arise where people are un-accepting of others unlike them. This is especially problematic in societies where people prefer to stay within the confines of their own cultural comfort zones, insulated from those who may not share their values, beliefs or interests. And such divisions may not seem apparent at all – at least not on the surface.

Awareness

Ian Macduff, a law professor and director of Singapore Management University’s (SMU) Centre for Dispute Resolution, believes that culture shock can happen anywhere, even in the most familiar places. He recounted an incident in New Zealand where he had to mediate between the country's indigenous Maori groups. Macduff had spent a large part of his life in New Zealand, and he considered himself well acquainted with the culture and sub-cultures of the land. At his first meeting with the Maoris, he ran through the mediation process so that the parties involved would know what to expect - as he normally would. It took him by surprise when one of the Maoris responded, “That’s not how we do things!”

The incident stuck with Macduff because it demonstrated the importance of intercultural preparedness - even within environments where you would least expect to encounter such tensions. “One has to be aware of bringing your own set of cultural assumptions… the idea of that parachute brigade coming in with their toolkit from the outside and imagining that it’s going to work –- it doesn’t work, and it’s naïve,” he said.

Today, there is a greater appreciation for intercultural competence in the fields of conflict resolution, thanks to a variety of research and training in such areas. People are also more aware of the potential pitfalls when one chooses to address contentious issues based on one’s own assumptions and world views. Case-in-point: ‘the AWARE saga’ earlier in the year, when a group of women, most of them belonging to the same church, sought to tackle sexuality issues in the public sphere.

United in their opposition to a non-profit group’s comprehensive sexuality education programme, the women made a coordinated move to usurp the group’s leadership through an annual general meeting vote – a move which would then allow them to remove or rework programmes that were incompatible with their religious values – values which they assumed most voters would also hold.

Though the women were eventually discharged from the executive committee via a second popular vote, details of ‘the AWARE saga’ played out to much public furore. Some thought that the women did nothing wrong. Others thought they chose the wrong platform to promote their agenda. Public debates were exacerbating tensions between different groups at that point, through newspaper letters and online forum discussions. As Prime Minister Lee summed it, “This was hardly the way to conduct a mature public discussion of issues where views were deeply divided.”

For Macduff, the episode highlighted a lack of intercultural understanding between the various groups – proponents and opponents of comprehensive sexuality education, religious and non-religious groups, etc. “The only way in which you can deal with these things is not through a directive from the top, but through engaging in a form of respectful dialogue, recognising the differences… [But] guidance has to come from the top… through promoting grassroots dialogue, community-based dialogue, mutual understanding, shared festivals… eating together,” he said, adding that these are things that Singapore has done well, compared to most countries.

However, most efforts have been aimed along ethnic lines, and culture, as we know it, transcends race, language or religion. Perhaps a solution lies in developing a greater appreciation for pluralism – the belief that despite their differences, people can co-exist (peacefully) within the same society. The idea of promoting pluralism, however, is fraught with concerns; that intercultural differences might be accentuated, thereby deepening cultural rifts or upsetting the status quo ‘equilibrium’ of intercultural tolerance. There are also concerns that pluralism might lead to social disintegration, as people identify more closely with their sub-groups than larger national interests.

A multicultural society

According to Macduff, two main views exist today: “One view of multiculturalism is that what you do in your private life, whether you’re going to be Catholic, Buddhist, etc, that’s a matter of your private life… the public life is secular… Through to the other view, which says that multiculturalism cherishes your diversity and public expression of that diversity, and so [society] should try and figure how we can fit that into the political life.”

France adopted the former view when they enacted a ban on the burqa. Beyond its symbolic threat to secularism, the ban was also motivated by its representation of the oppressed woman – a notion that perhaps causes even more discomfort amongst the French than its religious allusions. Similar issues have been deliberated in England, Germany, Holland, Australia and New Zealand, mostly brought upon by an increasingly diverse population of skilled foreign talent, immigrants and refugees.

“What observers have been trying to work on is how [to] develop what some are referring to as a form of liberal multiculturalism. The basic principle of which is that there are some values about respect for the individual, respect for law, respect for the rights of others, respect for human dignity, which are core,” Macduff explained. A society’s approach to diversity and pluralism would then be guided by such a core framework.

But how can society promote pluralism without allowing differences in values and fundamental belief systems to threaten an otherwise amicable co-existence? Macduff recounted his experiences with a US-based group, Public Conversations, which specialises in facilitating difficult conversations between opposing parties. Contentious subjects, such as public policy, homosexuality and stem-cell research, would be debated in a structured and tightly managed environment. Their purpose: ‘to guide, train, and inspire individuals, organizations, and communities to constructively address conflicts relating to values and worldviews.’

“For at least the last 10 to 15 years, [one of the most debated topics is] abortion, where people are really at polar ends and typically wouldn’t talk to each other. But if we can find ways of structuring the dialogue so that people talk to each other, not with a view of saying, ‘I am going to turn you from pro-life into a pro-choice person’ or the other way around, but [rather] so that at least you understand where I’m coming from…” he said. Such public dialogues should be aimed at sharing and promoting understanding, not as a means to provide closure on the issues. Public dialogues should also be sustained because when people stop talking, real harm can happen - “What’s happening, ironically, of course, is that the pro-life people are starting to shoot the pro-choice people,” he quipped, referring to the way in which the abortion debate in the US has transpired.

“Naïve and hippie”

As for managing pluralism in Singapore, Macduff thinks it is promising that the government takes proactive steps to identify and study ‘fault lines’. Divisive issues have to be addressed, of course, but preferably not through government directives. The best way, perhaps, is still to promote community dialogue – to simply get people to talk to one another. He admits, “this sounds a bit naïve, a bit hippie, [to say that the only thing we can do is] to keep talking; but that’s all we’ve got… And you can suppress and control it via top-down measures, but they only last for so long.” Laws and social policies can prevent the expression of intercultural tensions, but they do little to address how people might relate to those unlike them.

For a start, universities can play an important role, through seminars and public forums to promote a wider culture where it is perfectly acceptable to exchange ideas, even if it means disagreeing in certain areas. “Part of that is recognising that the cultural norms other people operate by are ones that you might find offensive,” he said. So as people become increasingly exposed of a variety of concepts and stories, over time, they might be more prepared to exercise greater tolerance and understanding.

“Cultural differences are not hardwired. We are capable of moving beyond cultural and perceptual boundaries, even if we may differ in terms of our own individualism, collectivism, hierarchy, or things like that… You’re never going to get people fully aligned, but you can at least move them closer to each other,” Macduff noted. “What you have to do is to find some way of opening their cognitive pores, so that they will be aware that their world just might look a little different.” In the meantime, the best thing to do is to keep on talking.