I assume transcendent. I think any actions relating to "groups": nationalities, castes, races, ethnic groups, sectarian religions etc. that doesn't involve breaking down the artificial barriers between them and reinforcing our shared kinship as humans are toxic. Especially as by and large these discrete categories arose in the 19th century or later, we should work to tear them down (the most common reinforcer of this toxic identity politics being borders, immigration bureaucratic and the national elites that are most interested in preserving the nation-state model).
Likewise we should acknowledge that cultures are not the exclusive preserve of races or or groups, and people should be free to adopt the cultures they choose. Furthermore, people should not be forced to change their individual preferences based on the dominant culture of their surroundings (whether it be a government that restricts their individual choices or a kinship group).
I would agree with this completely from an ideological perspective. It's important to remember that culture is not innate, or natural, and that it is developed by the way people interact, and the way they live together.
The last sentence as well, "national" identity is in many respects a form of divide and rule designed to reinforce the power of the elites by separating and silo-ing the rest of us. The idea that people with different cultures should fit naturally into different "nations" is patently untrue; there are many examples of multicultural nations working perfectly succesfully, which indicates that the nation as a concept as not necessary or natural in the way that people believe.
The current reaction against the multiculturalism driven by immigration stems much more from the economic status of the immigrants and of those most affected to immigration than it does from any inherent clash of cultures - so the real issue at hand is the way we have allowed unequal societies to fester than from allowing people with different cultures to live alongside each other.
Poll
