Pluralism vs. Monism

Pluralism holds that the universe consists of discrete, self-contained entities, each possessing its own independent essence. Monism, by contrast, maintains that what appear to be separate elements are in fact interconnected expressions of a single, unified reality grounded in an underlying coherence. Where pluralism foregrounds diversity and differentiation, monism emphasizes unity and interdependence. These opposing metaphysical views reflect broader intellectual traditions: pluralism aligns with the atomistic, analytical orientation of Western thought, while monism resonates with the holistic, integrative philosophies long cultivated in the East.

At the social and political level, pluralism champions individual distinction, self-determination, personal liberty, individual rights, private ownership, competition, and free-market economics. Monism, on the other hand, conceives of individuals as interrelated members of a larger social organism, prioritizing communal interests, cooperation, equality, fraternity, social responsibility, and collective well-being. These philosophical paradigms have profoundly shaped economic systems, political institutions, and social values across civilizations. The central question, however, remains unresolved: which worldview better serves humanity’s long-term interests and leads toward a sustainable and flourishing future?

Aristotle famously observed that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” For much of human history, monistic thinking prevailed, as early societies intuitively understood that unity and cooperation were essential for survival. With the rise of modern science, technology, and industrialization, individuals gained unprecedented autonomy, fostering self-reliance and accelerating a shift toward individualism and pluralism. These developments elevated personal liberty and diversity, contributing to the emergence of multiculturalism and the embrace of nonconformity, including LGBTQ+ rights, same-sex marriage, and other iconoclastic values. At the same time, these trends have been accompanied by broader philosophical shifts: relativism, which blurs distinctions between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, or beauty and ugliness; skepticism toward intellectual authority, reason, and even science; and policy frameworks such as affirmative action aimed at redressing historical inequities. While these developments have expanded inclusion and stimulated creativity, they have also intensified social fragmentation, eroded shared moral standards, and fueled ideological polarization, partisan conflict, and civic decline (see Tango and Individualism).

Rooted in a Darwinian logic of competition and survival of the fittest, extreme individualism and pluralism often neglect the values of equality, morality, and the common good. The result has been growing social instability—not only within societies that champion these ideologies but also globally. This is evident in the moral decay, political dysfunction, and rising lawlessness within the United States, the erosion of integrity among its political elites, and the destabilizing effects of its hegemonic and coercive foreign policies abroad (see Darwinism and Confucianism).

At their core, these ideologies overlook a fundamental truth: human beings are inherently interconnected and interdependent. Our survival and progress depend on solidarity and cooperation. A healthy society must be grounded in philosophies that cultivate cohesion, shared moral principles, social stability, and effective governance. When individuals are set against one another in relentless pursuit of personal gain, division and hostility inevitably follow.

This pattern is evident in the aftermath of many U.S.-led interventions carried out in the name of “liberation,” which have frequently produced domestic instability, humanitarian crises, and mass displacement. These consequences are further compounded by open-border policies and the growing challenges of multicultural integration at home. If radical liberalism continues to advance—privileging absolute personal freedom over collective responsibility, rejecting all authority as oppressive, framing democracy as “the tyranny of the majority,” intensifying gender antagonisms, politicizing education, media, and law, and fragmenting society into ever-narrower identity groups—the social fabric will continue to unravel.

To be clear, liberalism has historically played a vital role in unlocking human potential and enabling capitalism’s rise in the West. Yet its excessive emphasis on individualism has increasingly become counterproductive. As one perceptive reader noted: “Freedom and human rights movements have placed an intensified focus on individuality. This inflated sense of self diminishes our ability to perceive the world as a unified whole and may underlie many modern psychological struggles—loneliness, depression, and mental distress. By zooming out and recognizing ourselves as small parts of a vast universe, unchanged since the Big Bang, we may rediscover the beauty of ancient natural laws and adopt a healthier perspective on ourselves and the world” (see A Wise Voice).

Although freedom is a legitimate human aspiration, radical liberalism has paradoxically resulted in the reconcentration of wealth, resources, and political power in the hands of a few—no longer under monarchies or aristocracies, but under the guise of free competition.

Observing the West’s historical success, the East—while remaining rooted in holistic philosophy and Confucian ethics—has increasingly encouraged human initiative and creativity, producing remarkable gains in recent decades. While the East has selectively integrated Western strengths, the West has largely refused to learn from the East, clinging to the belief that its past success validates its ideological supremacy. Rather than confronting its structural and moral contradictions, it has doubled down on neoliberalism. Enormous resources are devoted to media propaganda, NGOs, military expansion, and cognitive, trade, technological, and financial warfare to preserve its system and impose its values globally. This reaction is understandable given that capitalism has a vested interest in sustaining these ideologies—without them, plutocracy risks losing its legitimacy (see Democracy vs. Plutocracy).

Yet the global balance of power is shifting. While the pluralistic West once held clear advantages, the monistic East—having integrated Western strengths—has rapidly closed the gap and, in many areas, surpassed it. Individuality and sociality are both intrinsic dimensions of human nature and must be held in balance. Neither authoritarianism, which suppresses individual freedom, nor radical individualism, which denies humanity’s shared destiny and interdependence, can sustain a cohesive society. A successful society is built on fraternity, solidarity, cooperation, and a willingness to subordinate narrow self-interest to collective purpose. This is how families function (see Tango and Family Values). This is how tango is danced. This is how China has grown strong. And this is how America can regain its strength.

In this context, tango offers a powerful counterpoint to modern individualism. It reminds us that we are not isolated actors but participants in an intimate, responsive human partnership. Through its emphasis on mutual accommodation, trust, and cooperation, tango reveals a profound truth: genuine progress arises not from competition, but from collaboration. In this sense, tango confirms that equality, cooperation, mutual benefit, and sharing are not merely aesthetic ideals, but the true foundations of a better world (see Philosophies that Separate Two Worlds).