Multiculturalism sounds nice — until it destroys your society.

As the late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, a nation is held together by a covenant: a shared story, identity, and responsibility. Israel understands this; much of today's West does not.

illustration by Future of Jewish

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.

---

Multiculturalism, in theory, is beautiful.

A mosaic of cuisines, customs, and colors. A celebration of diversity. A utopia where everyone is different and everyone belongs.

But, in practice (and especially when taken too far), multiculturalism often becomes less about diversity and more about the erosion of shared values. Societies that chase multiculturalism at all costs risk diluting the very glue that holds them together.

Let’s be clear: Appreciating different cultures is not the problem. Welcoming immigrants, learning from other traditions, honoring differences — these can strengthen a society. But when a country elevates cultural variety above cultural cohesion, it loses something vital: the ability to function as a coherent civilization.

Multiculturalism as a sociopolitical ideal emerged after World War II, largely as a moral corrective. In the wake of fascism, racism, and colonial arrogance, the West decided that it would no longer impose a dominant culture on minority populations. Every culture, it was argued, deserved equal status and equal space in the public square.

But like many ideologies born of guilt, multiculturalism became a rigid orthodoxy. In the name of openness, it closed off the possibility of prioritizing any one set of values, even those foundational to liberal democracy itself. In trying to honor every identity, it eroded the sense of a shared one.

Today, cultural relativism (the belief that no culture is better or worse than another) has made it taboo to defend Western norms as worth preserving. Countries like Sweden, France, Canada, Australia, and the UK have all wrestled with the consequences of importing not just people, but unassimilated cultural practices that directly conflict with the host society’s laws and (classical) liberal values.

In Sweden, entire suburbs now operate as de facto parallel societies, where police fear to tread and local norms no longer reflect national ones. In parts of Britain, gender segregation is enforced in community events. In France, the state is locked in a permanent tug-of-war between secularism and imported religious fundamentalism.

When cultures that don’t believe in gender equality, freedom of speech, or minority rights are treated as untouchable, the entire social contract unravels. A society that prides itself on women’s rights but tolerates honor killings, or celebrates free speech but fears publishing cartoons, isn’t being inclusive. It’s being incoherent.

In other words, multiculturalism becomes excessive not when people enjoy different cuisines or speak different languages at home, but when the basic terms of coexistence are up for debate. When some groups reject liberal democracy, women’s rights, or even the legitimacy of the nation-state itself — and are still treated as equal stakeholders in the public square — the glue that binds society dissolves. There is a difference between pluralism and parallelism. One strengthens society; the other fractures it.

Multiculturalism, when unchecked, replaces the question “What unites us?” with “Who’s next on the diversity panel?” It turns citizens into interest groups, and national identity into a blank canvas where anything goes and nothing matters.

To clarify, this is not a call to completely eliminate immigration, enforce cultural purity, or demand ideological conformity. It is not about fearing the “other.” It is about asking whether a society can function if it no longer expects anything of anyone. Tolerance does not mean abandoning the responsibility to preserve a shared way of life. The question isn’t whether we should welcome newcomers; it’s whether newcomers are also expected to become part of something larger than themselves.

When multiculturalism becomes untouchable dogma, social norms (the unwritten rules that govern how we live, cooperate, and trust each other) evaporate. Indeed, social norms (not multiculturalism) are the invisible infrastructure of a functioning society. When those norms are fragmented or contradictory, society becomes atomized. People retreat into enclaves. The public sphere turns into contested territory. Trust evaporates.

A multicultural society without strong norms is like a symphony where every musician brings their own sheet music. The result isn’t harmony; it’s noise. For music to work, you need different instruments and a common score.

This harmony (although imperfect) exists in Israel, a country that has achieved something remarkable: true diversity without social disintegration. Jews from over 100 countries; Arabs, Druze, Bedouins; secular and religious; conservatives and liberals. Israel contains multitudes, and yet, unlike many Western states, it has retained a strong cultural center. There is a spine to Israeli society: Hebrew language, Jewish holidays, shared memory, and a national ethos of mutual responsibility.

Of course, minorities retain their identities, but they are not encouraged to live in entirely separate universes. Integration, not cultural silos, is the goal.

What makes this cohesion possible isn’t just a shared calendar. It’s shared sacrifice. Most Israelis serve in the military or perform national service (volunteer work to benefit the country). The memory of the Holocaust and expulsions from Arab states, genocidal war after genocidal war, countless terror attacks, and now October 7th — these are not distant stories. They are lived history. In Israel, no one has the luxury of imagining that society is optional.

This is the crucial difference: Western societies increasingly treat their norms as negotiable. Israel treats them as essential.

For example, when you get into a taxi in Jerusalem, you can easily have a deep conversation with the driver (whether Jewish or not) because there is plenty of common ground. In New York City, for example, there is rarely a real conversation to be had.

This is because Israel has done a pretty good job of integration, not to be confused with assimilation. The latter means fully shedding one’s culture to adopt another, often too demanding and unnecessary. Integration means retaining cultural uniqueness while also embracing common civic norms.

The problem with multiculturalism, as practiced today, is that it often rejects both. It says: Live however you want, believe whatever you want, and let the state accommodate the difference.

The result is social fragmentation, not social harmony. Integration works. Multiculturalism without integration does not.

The United States, for much of the 20th century, operated under a “melting pot” model. Immigrants brought traditions from abroad but embraced American ideals and civic responsibilities. Today, that model has been replaced by a “salad bowl” approach — colorful, sure, but disconnected. It celebrates difference while often neglecting the ingredients that hold a society together. The result is more expressive, but also more fragile.

Contrast that with one of the clearest examples of successful integration: the Jewish experience in many Western countries. For centuries, Jews maintained distinct religious and cultural traditions — observing their own holidays, dietary laws, and educational systems — while also contributing meaningfully to the broader societies they lived in. From medicine to literature, business and law, Jews have often found ways to honor their heritage without isolating themselves from the civic and cultural life of their countries.

This wasn’t always easy. It required a delicate balance: resisting the pressure to assimilate entirely, while also resisting the temptation to retreat into insular communal life.

But when that balance was struck, it produced citizens who were not only proud Jews, but proud Americans, Canadians, Australians, South Africans, Mexicans, British, and French. It proved that you don’t have to give up who you are to belong, and you don’t have to reject your nation’s values to preserve your own. It’s a model worth learning from, not condemning.

For whatever reason, many Western elites claim that an insistence on shared norms is oppressive. But there is a world of difference between imposing one religion and expecting everyone to follow the same laws. Between welcoming new traditions and refusing to challenge harmful ones. Tolerance doesn’t mean moral paralysis. A society cannot function if it cannot define itself.

Israel isn’t perfect. It has internal divisions, political gridlock, and fierce debates. But it has what so many societies lack: a shared “we.” Not everyone agrees, but almost everyone belongs. Not because of multiculturalism, but because of a common foundation.

Multiculturalism may make for great restaurant options, but it cannot replace the hard work of building a society. Diversity is a spice, not a meal. And when everything is “diverse,” nothing meaningful is common. Without something meaningful in common, there is no society; there’s just a crowd.

This debate is no longer academic. The consequences of cultural incoherence are playing out in real-time — from violence in Western cities, to deepening polarization across the West. In the absence of a shared moral and cultural framework, nations are becoming exponentially more challenging to govern. A society that cannot agree on basic norms cannot enforce laws and protect freedoms.

As the late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, a nation is held together by a covenant: a shared story, identity, and responsibility. Israel survives because Israelis still believe in this covenant. The same can be said about some Asian countries.

In sum, we don’t need fewer cultures; we need stronger foundations. Tolerance without norms is chaos. Diversity without cohesion is decay. And multiculturalism without meaning is not a moral achievement; it’s a civilizational gamble. The time has come to stop applauding fragmentation and start defending the bonds that make real diversity possible.

---