Commending to us the idea of cultural pluralism, Bhikhu Parekh says that 'Western thought has long been dominated by the view that while error is plural, truth is singular. We can be wrong in many different ways but can be right in only one way.' By contrast:
For cultural pluralism the world can be understood in several different ways depending on our conceptual apparatus, language, interests, purposes, the questions we ask and the kind of knowledge we seek and value. Like truth in general, moral truth or good... is also plural.
There are complex issues involved here and I don't propose to go into them; but every claim of this absolutely pluralizing sort is bound on some level to be self-defeating. There are indeed worse watchwords than plurality and pluralism, yet even they have their underlyling normative basis. Thus when Bhikhu says 'Every culture... requires others as its critical interlocutors' and 'In the cultural pluralist view, the dialogue is central to intellectual and moral life', he is giving his support to what he regards as quite general norms and norms, moreover, that he sees as superior to their competitors. Could he say they have no better claims on our adherence than the viewpoint he disparages under the labels 'monism' and 'singularism'? If he did say this, the very case made in his article would be undermined.