 |
| Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT |
That argument was metaphysical.
This second essay is civilizational.
It asks what follows socially, culturally, and ethically once reality is understood not as a static order to be dreaded and defended, but as a relational field of embracing becomingness in which many lives, traditions, and identities may learn how to dwell together.
If Essay One concerned the grammar of reality, Essay Two concerns the habits of living that makes such a grammar possible.
The question guiding this essay is therefore not:
What must people believe?
But:
What kinds of practices, dispositions, and institutions can arise when people experience themselves as co-participants in an unfinished world?
II
Pluralistic civilizations face a peculiar challenge. They cannot rely on a single sacred canopy, a uniformly accepted moral code, or an uncontested cultural center. Yet they cannot survive on procedural neutrality alone. A society that asks nothing of its members beyond tolerance will eventually lose the bonds that make tolerance meaningful.
Between coercive unity and hollow pluralism lies a more difficult path.
A path of shared participation without enforced sameness.A path of belonging without domination.A path of stability without stagnation.
This essay explores that middle terrain.
It does not offer a blueprint.It does not propose a new ideology.It does not imagine an escape from conflict.
Instead, it seeks to describe the shape of a regenerative civilization under conditions of difference.
A civilization capable of holding many stories without dissolving into noise.A civilization capable of disagreement without mutual negation.A civilization capable of continuity without collapsing nostalgia.
Such a civilization will not be built by policy alone. It will be built through a slow re-formation of civic imagination, moral expectation, and shared practices of care.
The sections that follow explore several dimensions of this re-formation.
How pluralism might move beyond mere coexistence.How participation can replace passive belonging.How generational continuity can be reimagined without cultural closure.And how love, understood as relational coherence, can function as a civilizational virtue rather than a private sentiment.
We proceed now to the first section.
It refrains from imposing a single worldview.It avoids overt theological domination.It protects individual freedoms of difference.
These achievements matter. Yet much of what usually passes for pluralism is better described as monocultural pluralism.
By this is meant a social arrangement in which many identities are permitted to coexist, yet all are required to inhabit the same underlying cultural grammar:
Belief is treated as private preference.Meaning is rendered subjective.Commitment is assumed to be reversible.Tradition is tolerated only insofar as it does not shape shared life.
Enculturating pluralism as described here is not relational. It is administrative. So that when pluralism is reduced to non-interference, it quietly undermines its own future, until it doesn't, and we next see a culture in chaos as we do today with America's maga culture and trumpian structures. Hence,
Tolerance alone creates distance, not belonging.It allows people to live side by side, but not with one another.It prevents violence, but does not generate trust.
Over time, a purely tolerant monocultural pluralistic society begins to feel thin.
Public life becomes transactional.Civic identity becomes procedural.Shared symbols lose resonance.Common goods feel abstract.
People retreat into smaller enclaves of meaning, often defined by ideology, identity, or grievance. Politics hardens. Culture fragments. Institutions hollow out.
What is missing is not diversity - what is missing is participation.
II
A regenerative pluralism does not ask different groups merely to endure one another. It asks whether they can become co-authors of shared societal life without surrendering their distinctiveness.
This requires a shift in how pluralism is imagined.
Pluralism is not a truce between isolated worlds - It is a field of interaction.
In a processual understanding of reality, difference is not accidental. It is constitutive. The task is therefore not to eliminate difference, but to cultivate patterns of relationships which allow difference to remain generative rather than destructive.
Such cultivation depends upon shared practices rather than shared doctrines.
Practices of listening rather than proclamation.Practices of hospitality rather than boundary policing.Practices of mutual responsibility rather than enforced agreement.
These practices do not emerge spontaneously.
They must be learned, modeled, and sustained across generations.
A pluralistic civilization that wishes to endure must therefore ask a difficult question:
What do we do together that teaches us how to live together?
This question opens the way toward a different kind of civic ethos.
Not one grounded in sameness.But one grounded in relational responsibility.
Monocultural pluralism does not, over time, grow into a richer ethnocultural pluralism. It thins culture rather than deepening it, leaving societies statically diverse yet relationally impoverished.
II. Relational Participation as the New Civic Center
The erosion of shared life in pluralistic societies is often misdiagnosed as a failure of agreement. Yet agreement has never been the primary glue of enduring civilizations. What binds societies together over time is not consensus, but participation in common practices that shape perception, expectation, and responsibility.
Modern societies have steadily displaced participation with enforced membership. And yet, as we have pointed out, this form of cultural membership is thin whereas enculturating participation is dynamically formative. Membership asks only that one be counted. Participation asks that one be shaped together with other (different or differing) memberships.
As civic life becomes increasingly procedural, individuals are treated less as contributors to a shared world and more as rights-bearing units navigating institutionalized systems. Belonging becomes abstract. Responsibility becomes optional. The civic sphere becomes something one uses rather than something one helps form.
Participation, by contrast, relocates the civic center.It does not ask first what people believe.It asks what people do, together.
This contrast has an analogue in political and economic discourse, where thinkers often distinguish between statism vs. dynamism:
- Statism emphasizes centralized control, fixed structures, and top-down coordination.
- (Processual) Dynamism, by contrast, emphasizes adaptability, initiative, and the creative agency of participants operating within evolving systems.
Yet the distinction becomes most illuminating when lifted from ideology and read civilizationally. The deepest problem with monocultural pluralism is not that it is insufficiently diverse, but that it is overly statized. It relies on administrative management rather than formative participation. It governs difference to be managed rather than cultivating relational involvement communally or societally.
Relational participation represents a different kind of dynamism. Not market dynamism. Not libertarian deregulation. But civic and cultural dynamism – the capacity of a society to generate meaning, responsibility, and continuity through lived interaction rather than centralized control or procedural neutrality.
II
In this sense, the failure of monocultural pluralism cannot be remedied simply by a return to ethnocultural pluralism. While ethnocultural pluralism rightly insists on cultural depth and historical inheritance, it remains insufficient on its own. That is, ethnocultural pluralism preserves difference, but does not necessarily generate relation. It acknowledges formation, but does not ensure shared formation.
What pluralistic civilizations require is relational pluralism.
Relational pluralism does not treat cultures as sealed units placed side by side, nor as interchangeable expressions of private preference. It understands cultural traditions as historically formed, living processes that come to themselves through interaction, translation, and participation in shared life.
In a participatory civic imagination, shared life is not sustained by ideological uniformity, but by repeated practices that cultivate mutual recognition over time. Example: Civically celebrated ethnic cultural times of the year, both together and apart. Chinese festivals, Greek festivals, Art celebrations, Environmental/Ecology Community days, etc. These should be thought out with care for the community and protection for its members.
Such practices do not eliminate difference.They situate difference within relation.
III
Participation teaches people how to inhabit disagreement without collapse. It creates habits of listening, negotiation, and restraint that no abstract principle can supply on its own. It slowly forms citizens who experience themselves as contributors to a shared process rather than as isolated claimants competing for advantage.
This shift matters especially in pluralistic contexts.
When societies lack a single religious or cultural center, participation becomes the functional equivalent of a sacred commons. Not a space of shared belief, but a space of shared formation.
This does not mean that all practices are equal.
Regenerative practices and participation must be oriented toward relational "goods" that are publicly intelligible across difference. Goods such as care for the vulnerable, stewardship of shared environments, intergenerational responsibility, and the cultivation of trust.
Practices that generate these goods tend to share several features.
They are local enough to be embodied.They are durable enough to be repeated.They are open enough to include difference.They are formative enough to produce new civic character.
Without such practices, pluralism drifts.
It becomes static rather than dynamic.Managed rather than lived.Tolerated rather than inhabited.
Participation also reframes the meaning of civic virtue.
Virtue is no longer primarily obedience to inherited norms.Nor is it mere authenticity or self-expression.Virtue becomes relational competence.
This means that communities learn the ability to engage difference without dehumanization. Build the capacity to accept responsibility without coercion. And form a willingness to contribute without guarantees of reward. These capacities cannot be legislated into existence. They are learned through practice.
IV
This is why attempts to revive civic life solely through rhetoric, moral exhortation, or policy reform so often disappoint. Without participatory formation, appeals to unity ring hollow and calls for sacrifice feel manipulative.
A regenerative civilization therefore requires a shift in emphasis.
From identity to contribution.From representation to participation.From passive inclusion to shared formation.
This does not resolve conflict. It changes how conflict is carried.
In many religious communities, practices such as Missionary Weeks have historically served an important formative role. At their best, they have exposed congregations shaped by a single cultural horizon to the complexity, dignity, and depth of lives lived elsewhere. Stories from missionaries working within Russian, Japanese, Muslim, or other cultural contexts have often disrupted parochial assumptions and softened inherited self-centeredness. They have shown that the gospel cannot simply be exported intact (as perceived by denomination context), but must be learned anew through encounter, translation, and humility.
At this level, such practices can function as genuine expansions of relational imagination. They teach that cultures are not empty vessels awaiting instruction, but living traditions worthy of respect and careful listening. They invite congregations to see themselves not as possessors of truth standing above others, but as participants in relationships that transform both giver and receiver.
Yet these same practices can also remain bounded by monocultural orientation. When missionary narratives are framed primarily in terms of successful assimilation, influence, or conversion outcomes, they risk reinforcing a subtle hierarchy of meaning. Difference is acknowledged, but only insofar as it becomes intelligible within the originating culture’s enforcing, assimilating categories. The encounter expands awareness, but not always reciprocity.
Relationally oriented practices shift the emphasis.
What matters is not how effectively beliefs are implanted, but how deeply relationships are formed. Not how well others are changed, but how thoroughly all participants are reshaped through encounter. When missionary engagement is understood in this way, it ceases to be a project of cultural extension and becomes a practice of mutual formation.
Such practices do not eliminate disagreement. They reframe it. They teach communities how to carry difference without domination, how to remain rooted without closure, and how to learn from others without surrendering integrity.
In this sense, the most generative missionary encounters are not those that reinforce (White, or Christian) monoculture, but those that quietly loosen it - replacing certainty with curiosity, control with care, and possession of truth with participation in a shared, unfolding work of healing.
In summary, when people experience themselves as co-participants in a shared field of becoming, disagreement is less likely to escalate into existential threat. The future is no longer imagined as something one group must seize from another, but as something that must be made together or not at all.
Participation thus becomes the civic-and-religious expression of a deeper metaphysical claim. That reality itself is not something we merely inhabit. It is something we help shape through how we relate with one another both within our pluralistic cultures and apart from it on foreign soils.
No society endures without some lived sense that past, present, and future belong together. When this sense weakens, cultures may continue to function administratively, but they lose the interior confidence required for generational persistence.
In contemporary societies, this erosion of continuity is often noticed only when it becomes statistical. Declining birthrates, delayed family formation, rising loneliness, and the thinning of intergenerational bonds are treated as demographic anomalies or economic puzzles.
Yet these patterns point beyond themselves.
From a relational perspective, demography does not initiate civilizational decline. It registers it as something which is occurring and then, how to respond to it. Which is always the keystone... how to respond to perceived "negative" change, positively....
When people hesitate to bring new life into the world, the reason is rarely reducible to material calculation alone. More often, it reflects a deeper uncertainty about whether the world they inhabit is coherent enough, trustworthy enough, or meaningful enough to be passed on.
Relational continuity names the conditions under which such confidence can still arise - without requiring cultural closure, enforced sameness, or nostalgic restoration.
Continuity, in this sense, is not repetition.
It is creative inheritance.
II
A processually oriented relational civilization understands inheritance not as possession of a fixed past, but as participation in an unfolding story that began before any one generation and will continue beyond it. Traditions are not static forms to be preserved intact. They are living patterns that must be interpreted, translated, and sometimes reformed through new, timely circumstances and encounters.
This distinction matters profoundly in pluralistic contexts.
A society composed of multiple religious, cultural, and philosophical traditions cannot rely on a single authoritative narrative of continuity. Yet it cannot survive without any shared experiential orientation toward the future.
Relational continuity offers a middle path.
It affirms that different local communities carry different local inheritances - languages, rituals, moral sensibilities, cosmologies - while insisting that continuity itself is a shared responsibility. What must be held in common is not belief, but care for the conditions that allow life to continue meaningfully.
This reframes generational responsibility.
Children are no longer understood merely as private projects, lifestyle choices, or economic liabilities. They are participants in a shared future whose shape depends upon how present generations live together now. Even those who do not have children themselves remain responsible for the world into which others’ children will be born.
When we see American ICE patrols removing children from their families, and separating families from one another, what we see is the enforcement of a monoculture on other cultures acting out dehumanization policies. The child, as well as the parent, and individual, understand themselves not to be valued nor loved, but a thing that is unwanted and removed from an unappreciative monoculture fearing for itself and not for the other.
In any civilization, such relational-pluralistic responsibility cannot be sustained by obligation alone. It requires hope in place of fear. Expansion over naïve dread. Trust over static imaginations of progress. And a quiet confidence that the future is still meaningfully open to formation.
III
Relational continuity cultivates this confidence by restoring depth to time. It resists both nostalgic fixation on a mythologized past and the flattening of time into an endless present. It invites people to experience themselves as links in a living chain of becoming - recipients of inherited gifts they did not create, and stewards of possibilities they will not fully see.
When this temporal imagination is lost, continuity collapses.
When meaninfulness is restored, even partially, generational desire becomes intelligible again.
Relational continuity does not promise control over what comes next. It promises participation in shaping it. It affirms that while no generation can secure the future alone, each generation can contribute to the conditions under which life, meaning, and care may continue to arise.
In this way, continuity is not secured by authority, identity, or enforcement. It is sustained by love extended through time.
In the final section, we turn inward to the interior capacities required to sustain such a civilization - capacities formed through practice rather than imposed by decree.
IV. Relational Virtue
Civilizations do not endure because they articulate the right principles. They endure because enough people acquire the dispositions required to live those principles without enforcement.
Modern discourse often treats virtue as either anachronistic or authoritarian. It is associated with rigid codes, imposed norms, or moralism detached from lived reality. In reaction, many pluralistic societies retreat toward value-neutral administration, assuming that shared life can be sustained through procedural conduct alone.
This assumption fails. Cultural proceduralism can regulate/administrate behavior but they cannot form character. Relational virtue must reframe the concept entirely.
Virtue is no longer understood as obedience to inherited rules, nor as the cultivation of personal excellence in isolation. It is understood as the capacity to sustain relationship across difference over time.
Such capacity does not arise spontaneously - it must be formed and informed by positive, participatory, and relational experience of other cultures such as can be found in cosmopolitan urban settings of large, melting pot cities.
II
Relational virtue includes habits such as patience in disagreement, restraint in the exercise of power, attentiveness to the vulnerable, and willingness to assume responsibility without guarantees of return. These are not abstract ideals. They are skills learned through repeated participation in shared practices.
In pluralistic civilizations, these virtues cannot be assumed. They must be cultivated intentionally.
This is why relational participation matters so deeply. Practices of shared work, shared care, and shared deliberation do more than accomplish external goals. They shape the inner lives of participants. They teach what it feels like to depend on others without domination, to be accountable without humiliation, and to disagree without dehumanizing the other.
Without such formation, pluralism remains brittle.
- Difference becomes threatening rather than generative.
- Conflict escalates into moral panic.
- Responsibility is displaced onto institutions.
- Care is privatized.
Relational virtue counters this brittleness by restoring a sense of personal and corporate /communal/societal agency bound to responsibility.
Agency without responsibility fragments society.Responsibility without agency suffocates it.
Relational virtue holds the two together.
It affirms that individuals matter - but not in isolation.It affirms freedom - but not without obligation.It affirms conviction - but not without humility.
III
This balance is especially crucial in religious and ideological contexts.
When convictions are detached from relational virtue, they harden into weapons. When virtue is detached from conviction, it thins into empathy. A relationally formed virtue allows convictions to remain strong without becoming coercive.
This is why love, understood relationally, is not an optional supplement to civic life. It is its sustaining force.
Love, in this context, does not mean affection or agreement. It means the willingness to remain present to others as others, even when difference persists. It is the discipline of holding space for shared becoming without insisting on control over outcomes.
Such love cannot be commanded - it must be learned.
And learning requires time, patience, and communities willing to form their members rather than merely manage them.
IV
Relational virtue therefore completes the arc of this essay.
Pluralism without virtue dissolves into fragmentation.Participation without virtue collapses into exhaustion.Continuity without virtue hardens into nostalgia.
But where relational virtue is cultivated, pluralistic civilizations can remain open without becoming incoherent, diverse without becoming divided, and stable without becoming static.
This does not guarantee success. But it offers something more realistic and more demanding. It offers the possibility that shared life, though fragile and unfinished, may still be worth the work of sustaining.
Societies of Difference
No one told us how fragile
shared living would feel
once monolithic certainty
We learned to tolerate -
but we forgot how to
Our artificial walls hardened
Underneath, something waited -
beneath the noise of distrust,
and the ache of separation.
A practice.
A table.
A listening that did not rush
to be right.
Not unity.
Not erasure.
Not peace without cost.
But the work of staying present
when difference remained.
The courage to care
without guarantees.
We cannot agree to sameness -
And if there is hope enough
to teach our children,
it will come in the way
Not as command,
but as invitation.
but as a shared turning
toward what can beautifully
February 7, 2026
@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books, 1966.
Eberstadt, Nicholas. Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2016.
Hanson, Victor Davis. The Dying Citizen: How Progressive Elites, Tribalism, and Globalization Are Destroying the Idea of America. New York: Basic Books, 2021.
Keller, Catherine. On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. 3rd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.
Oord, Thomas Jay. The Uncontrolling Love of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015.
Postrel, Virginia. The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress. New York: Free Press, 1998.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Religion in the Making. New York: Fordham University Press, 1996.
No comments:
Post a Comment