Multiculturalism in Turbulent Times

Christine Halse, Kerry J. Kennedy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000394306
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación multicultural

This book interrogates politics and practices of multiculturalism and multicultural education in contexts where liberal and critical multiculturalism is under pressure. It examines and interrogates perspectives on multiculturalism and the political and social to diversity in societies in Asia and Europe. It is set against a background of increasing right wing radicalism and pervasive authoritarianism in different parts of the world. These ideologies not only undermine multiculturalism but the potential of democracy itself. The book includes chapters from leading scholars on multiculturalism, interculturalism and diversity around the world. It examines the challenges to multicultural diversity in the Global North, and makes a distinctive contribution by addressing this issue in the Global South societies of Asia, including Myanmar, China, and Pakistan. As such, this book opens up international debate about multiculturalism by providing exchanges rarely heard across borders.

Part I
Disrupting the field

1 Theories and theorising of multiculturalism

Christine Halse

The rise of multiculturalism

Multiculturalism evolved in liberal democracies as a policy response to a new politics of recognition arising from increasing migration, and racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity within nation states. The foundational principle of multiculturalism is civil and political liberty for all members of a society, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture or religion. This includes: freedom of speech, conscience and assembly; the right to mutual respect and political participation; and equality of opportunity, particularly the right to education and training, and employment.

In parallel, multiculturalism seeks to eliminate policies and practices that assimilate, structurally discriminate or disadvantage racial, ethnic and cultural minority groups. It also advocates group-differentiated rights for minorities so they can have equitable access to the social, economic, political and public resources necessary to participate fully in all areas of civic life. To accomplish these goals, multiculturalism emphasises the recognition and acknowledgement of racial, ethnic, cultural and religious differences between minority groups, and the use of policies, laws and provisions by the state to support, protect and preserve the heritages, identities, beliefs and cultural practices of minority groups (see Kymlicka, 1995, 2003; Meer & Modood, 2012, 2016; Parekh, 2016; Taylor & Gutmann, 1994).

Multiculturalism is also a particularist philosophy. In contrast to universalism which presumes that fundamental ideas such as human rights apply in all contexts at all times, particularism considers the impact of local circumstances and relationships on ideas and practices. As a result, the character of multiculturalism has appeared in different guises depending on local and national conditions, and the concept has been used to describe an ideology and a demographic and sociological reality, policy and political modus operandi.

For instance, after Europe’s colonial empires collapsed and the transnational European Union developed, multiculturalism in Europe focused predominately but not exclusively on the impact of ethnic migration and labour into the region. By contrast, in Canada multiculturalism is firmly tied to public policy but it has shifted from a focus on plurality and citizenship in the 1950s to social cohesion and indigenous rights since the 1990s. Nevertheless, in Quebec multiculturalism is viewed as an oppressive, cultural imposition by the Anglo majority on the Francophile community that inhibits the integration of French language and culture into public life (Bouchard, 2011; Bouchard & Taylor, 2008). In the US, multiculturalism developed out of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s as a central part of the democratic project, and is framed almost exclusively in terms of race, skin colour and resistance to the oppression of African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities (Banks, 2004; Sleeter & Grant, 1987). In Australia, by contrast, since the 1970s multiculturalism has focused on the rights and national identity of all peoples as members of a plural society, and emphasised the rights of individuals rather than groups to freely choose and express their culture and heritage (Moran, 2011).

Competing theories of multiculturalism

Given multiculturalism’s particularism, it is curious that significant disagreements have developed on key intellectual issues as multiculturalism has emerged as a field of academic study as well as a policy framework. These disagreements include: the relative importance of culture (culturalism) as an organising force for societies; the desirability of disparate legal treatment with variable outcomes for different social groups; the degree of attention and role of multiculturalism in developing and maintaining national identity; and the relative importance that should be attached to multicultural policy and legal interventions compared with intercultural dialogue and exchange.

As a result of these disagreements, scholars have categorised multicultural theory and theorists in different ways. For example, Kelly (2005) divides multicultural theorists into two groups: i) radical theorists who take the self as their starting point, such as Iris Marion Young (1990) and Bhikhu Parekh (2000); and ii) liberal multicultural theorists who take individual autonomy and choice as their starting point, such as Will Kymlicka (2010). On the other hand, Levey (2016) proposes two different categories: i) liberal nationalist multiculturalists who accept the institutional privileging of the majority culture; and ii) parity multiculturalists who believe that the state must treat all cultures equally without acknowledging any differences between majorities and minorities.

Such classifications and categorisations often reflect fundamentally different philosophical and disciplinary orientations. For example, Sarah Song divides multicultural philosophy into four distinct perspectives and approaches: communitarian; liberal egalitarian; freedom from domination; and an historical injustice and post-colonial perspective (Song, 2020).

Other classifications recognise the different uses that theorists make of the concept of multiculturalism. For example, ‘soft multiculturalism’ is used to denote individual tolerance, respect and recognition of ethno-cultural differences; ‘hard multiculturalism’ is used to describe the rules and laws that a society uses to enforce the rights of minorities and ensure conformity by the ethnic majority; and ‘critical multiculturalism’ is used to describe the radical quest to change inequitable power relations between different racial, ethnic and religious groups (Carr, 2012).

In contrast, Barrett (2013) suggests three different categories:

1. ‘symbolic multiculturalism’ which focuses on the ethnic heritage and material culture of different groups, known as the ‘saris, samosas and steel drums’ or ‘food, flags and festivals’ approach to multiculturalism that has been criticised for its superficial, reductive view of the cultures and cultural identities (Halse, 2015), essentialising cultures as static entities based on superficial practices (Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006), and ignoring the racism and structural discrimination minorities experience (Banks, 2009);
2. ‘structural multiculturalism’ that focuses on the use of policy and law to address the social, economic and political disadvantages of minorities, and is akin to the ‘state-led multiculturalism’ discussed below;
3. ‘dialogical multiculturalism’ which focuses on building processes of dialogue, exchange and inter-community relationships, akin to an intercultural approach.

Alternatively, reflecting on the contribution of their own research and scholarship in the political sciences Uberoi and Modood (2019) argue that they have established the Bristol School of Multiculturalism, along with scholars like Meer, Parekh and their students. They propose that the Bristol School of Multiculturalism offers a wholistic paradigm of multiculturalism because it is: grounded in philosophy and empirical research; has a particularist focus on multi-cultures in Britain; aims to reshape normative political thought, theory and practice; and has demonstrated relevance to emerging 21^st century needs (Uberoi & Modood, 2019). However, this framework is based on the work of a small group of like-minded political scientists who also assert that a primary purpose of their work is to distance it from the liberal multiculturalism represented by Canadian, Will Kymlicka.

A new typology of multiculturalism

In contrast, any theory of multiculturalism, I propose, requires re-engaging with multiculturalism’s metaphysical roots and the inter-related domains of epistemology, ontology and axiology, to generate a more inclusive, nuanced typology of multiculturalism that can accommodate its complexity, diversity and particularism.

1 Multiculturalism as epistemology: state-led multiculturalism (and its discontents)

Multiculturalism as epistemology is concerned with the phenomenon of ethno-cultural diversity, the challenges of living with diversity and the epistemological instrumentalities through which we learn, know and manage the social realities of diversity. State-led multiculturalism is the most conspicuous example of multiculturalism as an epistemology. This is the normative, institutionalised view of multiculturalism in democratic states. State-led multiculturalism accepts the social reality and value of ethno-cultural diversity in contemporary societies but engages with multiculturalism through the lens of state-led policies, laws, structures and practices developed by political leaders. Multiculturalism as epistemology is a liberal theory of multiculturalism that is “first and foremost a theory of state–minority relations” (Kymlicka, 2018, p. 82) concerned with defining the vertical relationship between the state and its racial, ethnic and religious minorities as a strategy for living with diversity. This stance takes for granted that the state has a responsibility to protect and support minorities through policies and programmes that give them the capacity and freedom to access the same political, economic and social benefits as the social majority. These include: i) civil rights through political and legal representation and participation, residency rights and pathways to citizenship; ii) access to state services such as education, health care, employment and social welfare, and the support they need to benefit from these service such as the provision of language training and multi-lingual translation; and iii) the freedom and protection to retain, maintain and develop their distinctive racial, cultural and religious values, identities, practices and lifestyle, if need be through special privileges and laws to protect their freedom of religion, observation of religious holidays, and to learn and use their heritage languages, etc. (Levrau & Loobuyck, 2013; Meer & Modood, 2012; Parekh, 2000).

State multiculturalism is a critical part of all genuine, contemporary democracies but this does not mean that all democracies do state-level multiculturalism well or are exempt from critique. Conservative public commentators, for example, have charged state-led multiculturalism with causing divisions in society and potential clashes between cultures (Blainey, 1984; Huntington, 1996; Schlesinger, 1991). Academics have also criticised the principle of recognition inherent to state-led multiculturalism because it constitutes minorities as a distinct group, ignores reciprocal recognition in pluralistic societies and is blind to the problems cultural differences pose when applied, for example, to the separation of state and religion, women’s rights and specific cultural practices such as wearing the burqa and female circumcision (Barry, 2001; Joppke, 2004; Levey, 2000). Feminist scholars have also criticised state-led multiculturalism because it focuses on minority rights and the inequalities between groups while ignoring universal principles that support gender equity and the inequalities within minorities, particularly for women (Eisenberg & Spinner-Halev, 2005; Nussbaum, 1999; Okin, 2000). At the same time but without empirical evidence (Kymlicka, 2016; Taylor, 2015; Zapata-Barrero, 2015), politicians, the media and the public have blamed state-led multicultural policies for a raft of social problems, including the development of ethnic enclaves and parallel societies, a lack of inter-ethnic interaction, the failure of migrants to integrate, and increased crime, radicalisation, racial intolerance and mistrust and fear in societies (Barrett, 2013; Cantle, 2012; Council of Europe, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2009, November 28; Sondhi, 2008).

2 Multiculturalism as ontology: everyday multiculturalism

Such critiques aside, viewing multiculturalism solely as epistemology and in terms of its epistemological instrumentalities fails to acknowledge that the diversification of diversity (Vertovec, 2015) has changed contemporary social reality and the experience of multiculturalism. This includes increasingly varied patterns of mobility, intensified experiences of radical differences between races and religions and the reframing of the experiences of displacement and broader socioeconomic change felt by both recent and longer-term migrants (Wise & Noble, 2016). For these reasons, the capacity to negotiate and transcend difference has become of greater political and social importance, especially in a world “panicked by international terrorism and fears of uncontrolled flows of asylum seekers” (Wise & Noble, 2016, p. 424).

Consequently, it is necessary to also view multiculturalism as an ontology that identifies the nature of diversities in societies, our assumptions about these and how we will/should engage with this social reality. Thus, multiculturalism as ontology requires us to realign our thinking and reconsider multiculturalism as the practice and experience of living in diversity.

This recognition has led to an increasing concern in policy, practice and scholarship with the ‘everyday multiculturalism’ or intercultural relations and the negotiation of cultural differences in the ways that people live together. As a field of scholarship, ‘everyday multiculturalism’ emerged in the 2000s from sociology, cultural studies, human geography and anthropology to the mark the fact of diversity as a separate but related empirical object to state multiculturalism (Wise & Velayutham, 2009). Everyday multiculturalism focuses on the personal, intersubjective dynamics of ethno-cultural-religious diversity. It is a situated, particularist approach that understands multiculturalism is a phenomenon produced through experience, everyday intersubjectivity and the negotiated social relations and identities that are shaped and reshaped through multiple processes and embedded in everyday multicultural settings, such as neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces (Wise & Velayutham, 2009). By revealing the ontology and the diverse character of intercultural interactions, everyday multiculturalism provides a productive, positive approach for elucidating social relations (Amin, 2002; ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Series Editor’s Note
• Acknowledgements
• PART I: Disrupting the field
• PART II: Perspectives from Europe
• PART III: Perspectives from Asia
• PART IV: Theoretical reflections
• Index