An empire composed of many peoples cannot survive if its ethnic communities regard one another as enemies. Its strength depends on the ability of different peoples to live under a common political authority without surrendering their respective identities. Racism therefore represents more than a moral failing. It is a political danger. When one ethnic group claims superiority over another, it creates resentment, distrust, and eventually conflict. A multi-ethnic empire must consequently prohibit racial discrimination and the incitement of ethnic hatred through law. Such measures do not require the abolition of ethnic distinctions. On the contrary, they protect the conditions under which those distinctions can endure. The purpose of imperial unity is not to produce a single people out of many, but to establish a political order in which many peoples can flourish without threatening one another.

The French philosopher Alain de Benoist (b. 1943) developed the concept of ethnopluralism as an alternative to both racial supremacy and the universalism of liberal modernity. Its central principle is the right of peoples to preserve their cultural identities without claiming that any one of them possesses a natural right to dominate the others. Applied to a multi-ethnic empire, this principle demands a careful distinction between political unity and cultural uniformity. A common state may require loyalty to its institutions, obedience to its laws, and participation in its defense. It need not require the abandonment of language, religion, custom, or historical memory. The empire becomes stronger when its peoples recognize their differences as legitimate expressions of their own ethnoses rather than as grounds for mutual hostility. Unity does not mean sameness, and diversity does not require political fragmentation.

Share

Racial studies designed to classify peoples according to supposed degrees of superiority would have no constructive purpose in such an empire. Their political function would be to establish hierarchies where cooperation is required. The anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942) challenged the racial determinism of his age and helped establish the intellectual foundations of cultural relativism. His work demonstrated the importance of understanding human communities through their particular histories and cultural circumstances rather than judging them against the single standard of Western civilization. Biological variation among human populations exists, but it cannot provide a scientific justification for ranking peoples. Ethnic identity, moreover, is not a fixed biological category. It is shaped by language, memory, customs, ancestry, and collective identification, with boundaries that change across history. Ethnic differences are therefore shaped largely by culture and history and provide no basis for considering one people superior to another. The differences are entirely subjective.

Liberalism offers a different solution to ethnic conflict, but one that carries its own dangers. Instead of arranging peaceful coexistence among distinct communities, it often treats inherited identities as obstacles to individual “freedom” and social integration. The melting pot becomes its ideal. Differences are welcomed as temporary expressions of personal preference, provided they eventually dissolve into a common way of life. What begins as tolerance can thus become a demand for conformity. Languages disappear, local traditions lose their authority, and historical communities become collections of individuals united chiefly by consumption and citizenship. A genuinely plural political order must reject this tendency. It must recognize that a people has a history extending beyond the lives of its present members. The preservation of cultural inheritance is not an act of hostility towards outsiders. It is a responsibility towards those who came before and those who will follow.

The imperial state must therefore maintain two principles that appear contradictory only to those who confuse equality with uniformity. Before the law, every ethnic community must enjoy equal protection, and no individual should suffer discrimination because of ancestry. Within society, however, communities must remain free to cultivate their particular traditions and institutions. A common legal order need not impose a common cultural identity. Schools may preserve regional languages, religious communities may maintain their customs, and local institutions may transmit historical memory from one generation to another. None of this requires segregation or restrictions on the freedom of individuals to associate across ethnic boundaries. The state must protect cultural continuity without imprisoning people within inherited categories. Its responsibility is to prevent differences from becoming instruments of domination while ensuring that unity does not become an excuse for cultural destruction.

The highest achievement of a multi-ethnic empire would consequently be neither racial hierarchy nor liberal assimilation, but a durable political civilization founded upon mutual recognition. Racism would be prohibited because it threatens the peace of the whole, while cultural differences would be cherished because they give that whole its character. The empire would ask its peoples for political loyalty, not cultural surrender. It would neither arrange them upon a ladder of human worth nor compel them to abandon their identities in pursuit of an abstract universal citizen. Every community would contribute something drawn from its own historical experience, and every community would possess an interest in maintaining the common order. Such an empire would understand what both racial supremacists and advocates of compulsory assimilation fail to grasp: a civilization need not consist of identical human beings to possess a common destiny. Its unity can rest precisely upon the continued existence of its differences.

Share

Leave a comment

If you enjoy my writing, order my new book, Dugin Against the Modern World: Essays on Alexander Dugin and the Multipolar Revolt.