Individualism, the other name of Humanism and, the foundation of Universalism, is built up on a paradox: that all individuals are unique and equal. Now, dont the two terms ‘unique’ and ‘equal’ cancel each other out? So we have to then add a condition to the definition. “All individuals are equal despite their uniqueness”. Does the definition work “universally”? Not really, as we know by the best kind of proof: around 200 years of solid historical evidence, even if we take Western history. Power—whatever its source money, beauty, land, resources—disbalances the equation in favour of some individuals.
And those that do not have individual power, “unite” to form fresh power centres—whether of religion, culture or politics. And then the power equations are replayed between groups, thus leading to the ideology of multiculturalism.
One of Multiculturalism’s great achievement—and there are a few—is to replace a flawed idea with a more flawed idea. If individuals by themselves cannot be equal, can they be, as members of groups, be? For, power, plays out its game at every level of relationship.
Is this why idea of Humanism was so wrong? And did Multiculturalism manage to totally trash it?
Maybe Humanism is yet another term in need of a new definition, something that has to be done before we reinstate it?