Here is an excerpt from an interesting philosopher called Ken Wilber who has much to say about multiculturalism. I think this little bit might shed some light on your interrogation. His term ''worldcentric'' must be understood in contrast to the term ''ethnocentric'', which means a worldcentric view focuses on our common humanity while ethnocentric views focus on cultural differences.
''The basic idea behind multiculturalism is to honour differences. But that can only be done under the protection of the worldcentric stance of universal pluralism. And thus, without demanding and fostering ways for people to develop and evolve to this higher stage (universal pluralism), we merely encourage them to act out their shallower engagements (my religion is the only right religion), and thus few people actually aspire to the worldcentric stance that alone allows protection.
Instead, every sort of retribalization, fragmentation, egocentric and ethnocentric shallowness-all those ''diversities'' are glorified as part of the decentered worldcentric stance, wheras they are exactly what prevent and sabotage that stance, and lead it by the hand into increasingly regressive engagements and the politics of narcissism, which, if it actually succeeds, will destroy the worldcentric stance that protected pluralism in the first place. And this in turn will open the door to actual oppression, etnocentric wars, imperialistic nightmares-we will lose all the liberation movements secured by the good news of the Enlightenement and its worldcentric tolerance.''
This is just a long way of saying that without encouraging and demanding that people follow the principles of universal pluralism, the model is likely to be attacked and destroyed by the proponents of ethnocentricism.
In other words, universal pluralism must be protected and encouraged.
