One Humanity and a limited plurality

Academic discourse debates whether a meaningful democracy requires a moral foundation or whether the democratic process itself provides such a foundation. We are currently experiencing obscene global inequality and the liquefaction of individual and communal identities, which is increasingly overriding the social cohesion of societies. Authoritarian populism is an attempt to rebuild this cohesion. The question then is, whether democracy can exist in extremely divided societies. This division is partly caused by a new phase of globalization, which can be understood as a tribal globalization. The global village is accompanied by the mentality of a villager. Hannah Arendt famously argued that the American Revolution was successful because it remained in the political sphere, whereas all subsequent revolutions, beginning with the French Revolution, turned into dictatorships because equality was extended to the social sphere. Today, we need to rethink Arendt's dictum and reinvent equality in polarized and deeply unequal societies. This division can manifest itself in ethnic,racial, national, or religious conflicts. In order to preserve democratic procedures, it is necessary to go beyond Arendt and revive the discourse on human equality and maintain a balance between freedom and equality.
Intercultural philosophy could contribute to such a perspective, but seems to be questioned by the new phase of globalization, of which the war in Ukraine is a significant indication –but this problem is not only caused by the emerging hybridity of globalization, but also by not taking into account the difference between mere multiplicity and (limited) plurality, which is to be understood as unity with difference and difference with unity.
.
Hybrid globalization and the problems of mere multiplicity are demanding a new approach of intercultural philosophy. In n addition to post-structuralism
and hermeneutics we need an approach of intercultural philosophy which is not only concentrating on differences, but also takes into account its unity
because the consciousness of being one humanity is despite all conflicts in the world steadily mounting .
To put it in a nutshell: Too much multiplicity destroys any meaningful dialogue; too little plurality risks becoming dogmatic and expressing unjust power. Intercultural philosophy and the dialogue of civilisations within states and among them is a means of resisting attempst to legitimize authoritarian movements and rules.