Modern progressivism is monocultural

One of the sources of tension in our modern polarization is the fact that progressivism is, almost by definition and certainly in practice, monocultural. Although the term "multicultural" is often used, the world view of modern progressivism entails a single aim, that is, a single culture toward which all other cultures must progress. ​

This view springs from the roots of progressivism in "modernism," which in the 1800s had a fairly crass form: European culture stands at the top of a Darwinist, evolutionary apex, and all other cultures become more civilized as they progress toward this paradigm. From this we still have terms such as "developing nations."  Pure modernism, with its confidence in science and rationality, is nearly dead in philosophy departments, but its legacy is still the foundation of progressivism: the notion of "progress" toward an ideal as humanity becomes smarter and more educated. One may argue that modernism in turn has roots in Christian postmillenialism, a variant of Christianity which believes in the complete redemption of the whole world, in which it is conformed to the ideal culture of God, by human efforts, before Jesus returns in glory. Both postmillennialism and modernism were boosted by the enormous economic success of Europe in the 1700s and 1800s, made possible both by new freedoms in the economy and new technology, which in turn made colonialism possible. This long period of success, following centuries of famine and plague in Europe, led to a general expectation of society moving ever upward.

Modern progressivism, of course, rejects this Eurocentric monocultural vision, but it is still at its core monocultural. It overlays a single template onto every culture in the world to assess the progress of that culture toward a single ideal. This template has the following basic structure:

• All cultures can be broken into three basic classes: the uneducated proletatariat, the bourgeois middle class, and the educated elite. Note that these are not strictly classes of wealth: some very rich people can be bourgeois in outlook due to lower educational status, while some of the elite may be starving artists or unemployed free spirits.
• The relevance of religion and variations in culture decreases as you go up the ladder: the lower classes have real belief in religion, the bourgeois give a nod to religion as a stable form and structure, and the educated elite dismiss religion altogether except as a quaint and sometimes fun exercise with no relevance to real-life decisions, or as the source of nice stories for moral analogies.
• There is a single ideal toward which all societies must progress, which includes interchangeability of male and female and all other sexual identities, plentiful governmental largess to help the poor,  libertarian freedom to indulge in all manner of sexual behavior and self-actualization as one sees fit, universal education teaching this template, and meritocracy based on that education.
• The educated elites in all cultures embrace this ideal. If the proletariat rejects it, it is because of evil demagogues who are using the proletariat for their own selfish ends, or because of "reactionary" mentalities which oppose all change out of fear. 
• Elite culture is highly individualistic. Family members who deviate from embracing the ideal must be cut off, and ties to family that inhibit libertarian self-actualization must be discarded.

Within this template, there is room for many different cultural phenomena.  For example, the religion of the lower classes may involve many different types of ceremonies, although of course the elite understand that it is all irrelevant. People might like different sports and entertainment forms, or different art and music, or different lines of specialized work, which might look quite non-European, but in the end, all of these visible differences just give the outside of the vessels containing the same basic content, given in the list above.  

Many a reader may have followed along to this point and genuinely not be able to imagine any other template. When I've presented this template to various people, quite often I get the response, "But of course, it is true!" In other words, the modern progressive view is so monocultural that it often cannot conceive of any other cultural template besides the one above, other than one which is outright evil. 

What other cultural templates could there be? Here I list just a few that have substantial global populations:

• Thoroughly religious elite. Many in the Muslim world would be offended by the above template, as they see religion as permeating all of society. The educated elite of society are expected to be more expert at religion, not less. In the same way, evangelical Christianity, sometimes called "Kuyperian" after the great Dutch prime minister Kuyper, who was thoroughly religious, sees religion as a seamless garment acting on the crucial elements of societal decision-making at all levels. Many in the Hindu and Roman Catholic worlds have a similar goal of religion permeating all of society including the elite. 
  
  The monocultural progressive lays the above template onto such cultures, and therefore seeks out a secular, Western-leaning subculture within each culture, which it defines as the "real" educated elite. Those in the nominally elite classes who profess to really believe a religion are either dismissed as uneducated (even when they do such things as win Nobel prizes, such as Richard Smalley) or worse, as evil people who know better but are using religion to manipulate others.
  
  
• High family commitment.  Confucianism, with its strong emphasis on deference of the individual to the needs and goals of the family, dominates China and some other Asian cultures. Many in the Latin and African world have a similar family-centered approach, to the degree that every accomplishment which might move a person into the elite is seen primarily as a way of bringing wealth and status to the family. 
  
  All of these cultural basins, of course, have subcultures which are individualistic in outlook, who cut themselves off from family to adopt behavior seen as flamboyant within their culture, but such people are predominantly seen as "Western," and in a great many cases, it is a phase of youth that eventually fades as people return to the family fold.
  
  
• Strong differentiation between the sexes. African, Latin American, and Eastern European cultures tend to value aggressive male behavior, sometimes called "macho" culture, to the degree that a man who does not act that way is disdained. Women in turn often vaunt their femininity; men and women tend to spend time in single-sex groups. Muslim culture, of course, has strong divides between male and female social circles. 
  
  The modern progressive sees all this as an evil that must be changed, and sees those within those cultures who reject it as the true educated elites of those societies.  Although little direct criticism is leveled at these cultures, the progressive attitude can often be paternalistic, with the attitude, "They'll eventually learn to embrace our ways."
  
  
• Stasis, or recovery of past glory. Many "tribal" cultures remain that way not because they are uneducated, but because they value stasis, and reject the idea of ever-upward progress. Historically, the idea of upward progress has been far from universal. In addition, some cultural basins both past and present see a fixed and unchanging empire as the ideal, often based on a perceived past golden age. There was a time when recovering the glory of the Roman Empire was a stated ideal of many in Europe; in the present, many in Russia and China seek a return to past empire and reject the progressive ideal as Western hegemony; like the progressive, they tend to read the world through their own cultural lens and see the real progressive agenda as empire for the West. For them, economic progress is not to move toward the progressive vision, but wealth-building with the aim of recovering and building their empire status.

The progressive vision recognizes that such world views exist, but it is monocultural in that it does not see these as reasonable choices; they are seen as relics of the past, at best harmless foibles and more likely evil. Christians who believe the Bible may indeed agree with progressives that some forms of these are evil, while also seeing some good in each; Christians also see both good and evil in various aspects of modern progressivism. For the progressive, however, these other world views cannot be taken seriously, because they undermine the main progressive narrative of progress toward a single ideal.

Within the US, the same type of narrowed monocultural vision applies. This can be seen, for example, in the self-description of progressives, who rarely use terms such as "left" or "liberal" for themselves, while they freely use the terms "right" and "conservative" to describe the other side of the political aisle. Of course, one cannot define a right side without having a left side, but to the progressive mind, the left of the aisle is "all correct-thinking people," not one of two optional sides. 

Thus, in the progressive mindset, any opposition to their plans to change society has no credibility; it is either reactionary opposition to change just because of disliking change, or it is worse: evil manipulation by people who know that the change would be good, but subvert it for selfish ends. Their view of progress is monolithic: they cannot see that some who oppose them have a different definition of "progress."  For example, the pro-life community talks of a positive change toward a "culture of life"; the pro-family movement talks of a positive vision of supporting nuclear families; pro-capitalists talk of economic growth. For the progressive, these are not alternative views of moving forward, to be debated and argued against with educated people, they are retrogressive and illegitimate. 

​For those who identify as progressive, therefore, a way forward as a peacemaker is to recognize that the progressive vision is one of many cultural options. Rather than seeing all opposition as regressive or evil, the progressive can advance the arguments for specific changes, knowing that some people will simply remain unconvinced.  In fact, many people are not offended by all progressive proposals, but resent the inherent cultural superiority they perceive in progressives. Like the Western missionary of yore who failed to see his or her own cultural blinders and just came across as arrogant to local people, the progressive of today comes across as arrogant to many, because progressives implicitly reinterpret all other cultural templates as inferior.

To those talking with progressives, recognize that they are not seeing you as a rational actor, but as falling into one of two categories: either simply reactionary, resisting all change or yearning for a past golden age, or as evil, arguing for ideas you don't actually believe in favor of your real agenda, which is selfish gain for yourself personally (greed and power) or for your group (racism and xenophobia). As with any cultural conflict, it is very hard for anyone to see someone from another culture or subculture as sincerely doubting their own values.