Why has pluralism replaced globalism as a more practical future for increasing world diversity?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary but correct responses should include: What was true of individual states was true of the entire world. "Shrinkage" brought peoples and cultures into unprecedented proximity. The peace and future prosperity of the world at the end of the century demanded a new global consensus in favor of pluralism, and an effort to accommodate plurality of cultures—religions, languages, ethnicities, communal identities, versions of history, value systems—on terms of equality in a single global community. In a world where globalization made most historic communities defensive about their own cultures, it has been difficult to persuade them to coexist peacefully with the contrasting cultures of their neighbors. Still, pluralism is obviously the only practical future for a diverse world. Paradoxically, perhaps, it is the only truly uniform interest that all the world's peoples have in common. Broadly speaking, towards the end of the twentieth century, a frail consensus in favor of pluralism emerged as the only workable strategy for a globalizing world, with intermingled cultures. Economic consensus, too, seemed easy to establish after the failures of overplanned, rigidly regulated or state-run economies, as the world turned back to the prescriptions of classical economics. Political convergence towards democracy seemed bound to accompany widening economic freedoms. The new consensus would last into the twenty-first century.