multiculturalisms - sagepub.netmulticulturalism as a normative issue a large part of the...

Sociopedia.isa© 2014 The Author(s)

© 2014 ISA (Editorial Arrangement of Sociopedia.isa)Enzo Colombo, 2014, ‘Multiculturalisms’, Sociopedia.isa, DOI: 10.1177/2056846014101

1

Introduction

The term ‘multiculturalism’ has become very popularin the last few decades and, as often happens to pop-ular words, it has ended up expressing quite differentmeanings. In this short essay, only a very concise and(personally) selective presentation of the currentdebate and the rich literature on this subject is possi-ble. In fact, multicultural discussions refer to a widevariety of situations – integration policies and welfarestate regimes, the legal and political accommodationof cultural diversity, the management of immigrationand national borders, the recognition and respect ofcultural/religious difference, living with ‘difference’ indaily contexts, the ideological representation of iden-tities, cultures and ‘the good society’, to name only afew. These also involve different disciplines – philoso-phy, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, polit-ical science, pedagogy, and cultural and postcolonialstudies – with their own distinct questions, perspec-tives and tool-kits. All this justifies the use of the termin the plural to highlight its polysemy and accountsfor the inevitable partiality of this presentation, whichmainly focuses on western societies.

This essay aims to offer the necessary coordinatesto locate these debates in an approximate, although Ihope useful, map. It starts exploring the various mean-ings difference can assume in the debate on multicul-tural societies. The second section sets out the mainways in which multicultural issues have been devel-

oped and critically discusses some aporias of themulti cultural perspectives. The third section presentsthe alleged current multiculturalism backlash, whilethe final part highlights some current directions ofresearch.

Multiculturalism: A polysemous term

Generally speaking, multiculturalism refers to situa-tions in which people who hold ‘different’ habits, cus-toms, traditions, languages and/or religions livealongside each other in the same social space, willingto maintain relevant aspects of their own differenceand to have it publicly recognized. Usually the terminvolves a positive evaluation of cultural diversity andthe institutional commitment to its preservation.Multiculturalism is closely associated with ‘identitypolitics’, ‘the politics of difference’ and ‘the politics ofrecognition’, all of which consider proper recognitionof cultural diversity a necessary step towards revaluingdisrespected identities and changing dominant pat-terns of representation and communication that mar-ginalize certain groups (Song, 2010). In fact, the kindof difference multiculturalism emphasizes and therecognition it claims can be quite disparate.

First, multiculturalism may refer to claims ofrecognition by native and sub-state national groups

abstract This article presents an overview of multicultural debates in western societies. It introduces thekey theoretical approaches, the main criticisms and it identifies current and future topics of discussion andanalysis.

keywords cultural difference ◆ cultural rights ◆ inclusion/exclusion ◆ integration ◆ recognition

MulticulturalismsEnzo Colombo University of Milan, Italy

2

Colombo Multiculturalisms

(Kymlicka, 1995). In relation to indigenous popula-tions – such as Aboriginal peoples in Canada andAustralia, American Indians, the Maori in NewZealand and the Inuit in Greenland – multiculturaldebates put forward the issues of the endowment ofrights for minority groups that have been subjugat-ed, exploited and discriminated against by (whiteEuropean) foreign conquerors. Natives were subject-ed to systematic and persistent violence, both physi-cal and symbolic, and they now occupy marginalpositions in economic, political and social life, wheretheir capacity to participate on a par is restricted bynegative representations and prejudices. The debatefocuses on the opportunity to endorse specific poli-cies in support of indigenous people to overcomelong-standing injustices and lingering inequalities.The policies may include land rights, self-govern-ment rights, recognition of customary laws and ade-quate political representation in nation-stateinstitutions as well as the promotion of anti-discrim-ination campaigns or the symbolic recognition of therole of these native groups in the shared history ofthe country. In relation to sub-state national groups– such as the Quebecois in Canada, Basques andCatalans in Spain, Corsicans in France, Flemish andWalloons in Belgium, Scots and Welsh in Britain,Germans in South Tyrol and Swedes in Finland –multicultural debates have mainly focused on poli-cies such as federal or quasi-federal territorial auton-omy, self-determination rights, guarantees ofrepresentation in the government and official lan-guage status, at either the regional or national level.

A second way to address cultural difference isrelated to discriminated groups within society.Typically, this debate has to do with issues of raceand gender. Integration and discrimination of‘racially marked’ minorities and the position ofwomen in society are cases in point, representing twoof the thorniest questions concerning the difficultiesof liberal democracies to move from formal egalitar-ianism to effective equality for all citizens. Althoughformal discrimination has been eliminated, bothracialized groups and women are under-representedat the topmost levels of economic, academic andpolitical institutions; they usually have higher unem-ployment rates and suffer forms of symbolic violencethat entrap them in misrepresentations and margin-al social positions. They are often depicted as inferi-or, lacking, irrational, and unfit for power andleadership. The multicultural debate focuses on thenecessity for affirmative action policies favouringmembers of these disadvantaged groups and allowingthem to overcome negative social representations.Affirmative action may either consist of a specificquota reserved for members of disadvantaged groupsin higher education, on corporate boards, at the top

levels of university and in parliament, or it may con-sist of preferential treatment in selection processes.The debate also introduces the need for specific pol-itics of difference (Young, 1990), i.e. a more radicalrevision of the criteria used to allocate social posi-tions and material goods. In this case, previous poli-cies of assimilation and inclusion are accused of biastowards white males and of being presented as neu-trality- and impartiality-led, but succeed only in uni-versalizing the experience of those in power.Affirmative measures should be taken to ensure thatmarginalized groups gain access to the social forumon an equal footing. This may entail different rulesand separate, exclusive organizations for oppressedgroups to enable them to engage in consciousness-raising and empowerment processes.

While race and gender are ‘two-dimensional’ or‘bivalent’ forms of discrimination and require redressin the forms of both distribution and recognition,other types of difference can be primarily discrimi-nated against on a symbolic basis. This is the case ofthe so-called despised sexualities, groups whose stateof oppression stems from cultural devaluing ratherthan political economic arrangements and who suf-fer injustice due to prejudice and misrepresentations(Fraser, 1997). Multicultural debates promoted bythese groups stress the importance of cultural dimen-sions. They deconstruct the alleged ‘normality’,showing how what is presented as ‘natural’ and ‘uni-versal’ is, in fact, the result of the imposition of thedominant rules and ask for appropriate recognition,only possible by changing current cultural patternsof interpretation, communication and representa-tion.

Multicultural debates in North America mainlyencompass native peoples and cultural minorities, inEurope however, they refer to a post-immigrationurban mélange and the politics it gives rise to(Triandafyllidou et al., 2012). In this case, culturaldifference refers to immigrants, and multiculturalissues entail overcoming previous assimilationist orcolonialist patterns of migrants’ inclusion in favourof the recognition of immigrants and their off-spring’s right of being part of society without com-plete identification with the majority group.Multicultural policies include the founding by thestate of ethnic group organizations to support cultur-al activities and preserve ethnic traditions, thefounding of bilingual or mother-tongue education,the exemption from dress codes and the recognitionof specific forms of legal and political pluralism,including multiple jurisdictional systems, especiallywhen warranted by religious beliefs or ethnic cus-toms. Immigrant multiculturalism also includesclaims for facilitated access to citizenship, includingthe possibility of dual citizenship.

3


Multiculturalism for immigrant groups clearlydiffers in substance from that of indigenous people,the internally discriminated or that of culturalminorities. Nevertheless, all of them, although indifferent measures, raise the same relevant issues:

• To promote more democratic inclusion,assuring real equal access and participation for allmembers of society without subordinating inclu-sion to assimilation into the majority group;• To overcome previous offensive and unde-mocratic relations of domination and exclusion,recognizing the violence and exploitation by themembers of the dominant group who imposetheir own rules and ideas by presenting them as‘natural’ and ‘universal’;• To take part in the debate on the ‘rules ofthe game’ for participation and to have a say inhow to build a fairer, more equal society;• To assure adequate recognition of andrespect for cultural difference, fighting stereo-types and prejudices that depict minority groupsin negative ways and entrap minority groupmembers in despised identities;• To recognize the right to be different, tohold different religious beliefs, sexual identifica-tions and preferences, plural identifications andmultiple citizenship without being discriminatedor excluded;• To give relevance to ‘culture’, ‘culturalgroups’ and ‘cultural rights’ (Levy, 2000), notonly to individual rights.

Theoretical approaches

Multiculturalism applies not only to diverse types ofdifference within society, it also entails various,although intertwined, theoretical perspectives thatpose specific questions and highlight distinctiveaspects of living with diversity in current societies. Inthis section, three approaches to multicultural issuesare introduced and critically discussed.

Multiculturalism as a normative issueA large part of the multicultural debate in the 1990swas monopolized by political philosophy in theeffort to develop a coherent theory of justice able toinclude a relevant space for group rights and therecognition of cultural difference. As political theory,multiculturalism challenges a liberal philosophy ofuniversalism that conceives human beings as ration-al agents of free will, whose freedom may be grantedonly through identical, individual rights. It stressesthe importance of the recognition of difference bothat the philosophical level – its importance for per-

sonal identity, self-fulfilment and social participation– and at the political level – its importance for giv-ing a voice, in the public space, to marginalizedgroups, overcoming previous injustice and exploita-tion.

Countering the liberal idea that emphasizes unityand sameness, a communitarian perspective valorizesdifference and group membership. It states thatrecognition of individual rights is not enoughbecause it presupposes an incoherent notion of theindividual as existing outside and apart from socialrelations, rather than embedded within them. Anappropriate recognition of both individual andgroup difference establishes the basis for full devel-opment of individual capacities and for fair anddemocratic participation in social life (Honneth,1996; Taylor, 1994). People can build an independ-ent and self-confident identity only through dia-logue with others, feeling part of a particular, distinctcommunity. Individual agency depends on belong-ing to particular social and cultural groups that pro-vide individuals with meaning. When the specificityof this community is ignored, glossed over, assimilat-ed into a dominant or majority identity, or misrecog-nized, a person or group of people can suffer realdamage, real distortion (Taylor, 1994: 25).

Liberal universalism and cultural neutrality arecontested too. Different cultures represent differentsystems of meaning and visions of the good life andno single one of them may claim to give appropriateanswers to the totality of human existence. No cul-ture is perfect and no culture has the right to imposeitself on others (Hollinger, 1995; Parekh, 2002;Rorty, 1989). Consequently, diverse cultural identi-ties should be presumed to be of equal worth and thetraditional liberal principle of identical liberties andopportunities for all citizens should be replaced witha regime of special rights for minority culturalgroups (Song, 2010).

Defenders of liberalism (Barry, 2001;Huntington, 1996, 2004; Schlesinger, 1998) observethat liberal democracy requires a common culturalbasis and a strong feeling of civic engagement inorder to function. They sustain that the politics ofdifference contrast with the politics of solidaritybecause recognition of group rights fragments socie-ty, promotes ‘parallel lives’, withers loyalty to thenation-state, reduces individual freedom and under-mines a politics of redistribution (for a similar criti-cism from a progressive point of view, see Gitlin,1995).

A significant attempt to overcome a rigid contra-position between individual and collective rights hasbeen proposed by Willy Kymlicka (1995). Endorsingthe liberal values of freedom of choice, personalautonomy and equality, he stresses the importance of

4


culture and cultural membership. Cultural member-ship matters and cannot be easily expunged from lib-eral theory because culture provides its memberswith a meaningful way of life and defines the rangeof options from which individuals can choose. It alsoprovides the necessary environment for developingindividual self-confidence and self-respect. A fairsociety should recognize the importance of minoritycultures and allow their members to protect theirculture against majority practices and rules.Nevertheless not all the claims of cultural protectioncan be accepted on a liberal basis. Kymlicka distin-guishes between ‘external protections’ – the demandby a minority culture to protect its distinctive exis-tence and identity by limiting the impact of the deci-sions of the larger society – and ‘internal restrictions’– the demand by a minority culture to restrict thebasic civil or political liberty of its own members inorder to maintain internal status quo, to preventgroup fragmentation or to contrast internal dissent.While ‘external protection’ claims are fully compati-ble with liberal principles and should be acceptedbecause they help to enhance individual freedom andsocial justice, ‘internal restriction’ requests must berejected.

Jürgen Habermas (1994) shares the idea that theprotection of collective identities does not necessari-ly conflict with the right to equal individual liberties.He sees the possibility of linking the two apparentlyirreconcilable principles when attention for the ‘con-tents’ of multicultural policies is replaced by a ‘pro-ceduralist’ conception of rights according to whichthe democratic process has to safeguard both privateand public autonomy at the same time. Safeguardingthe private and individual autonomy of citizens withequal rights must go hand in hand with activatingtheir autonomy as citizens participating in publiclife. Rather than concerns about which kind of poli-cy to promote, it is preferable to focus on the ‘condi-tions’ for a free, public discussion in which allcitizens, from their specific cultural location, have asay in the definition of the common binding rules. Afair multicultural society does not depend on somespecific, real and well-defined set of juridical normsand policies. Instead, it is the result of ‘constitution-al patriotism’, a public agreement on the rules forclaiming recognition and taking decisions affectingall members of the society. Seyla Benhabib (2002)further develops the centrality of deliberative democ-racy for multicultural debates. She considers one ofthe most widespread criticisms against the commu-nitarian perspective – namely its tendency to reifyculture, conceived as fixed, stable and characterizedby well-defined boundaries – and argues that theprinciples of liberalism and the acceptance of cultur-al and religious traditions may be easily arranged if

three conditions are met. Society and groups whoclaim cultural recognition must grant their mem-bers: ‘egalitarian reciprocity’ (members of minoritiesmust not, by virtue of their membership status, beentitled to lesser degrees of rights than the majority);‘voluntary self-ascription’ (an individual must not beautomatically assigned to a cultural, religious or lin-guistic group by virtue of his or her birth); ‘freedomof exit and association’ (individuals must have unre-stricted freedom to choose which group they belongto and to move from one belonging to another).

Multiculturalism as an (anti)ideologyAn original and important theoretical contributionto the ‘multicultural debate’ comes from a strongcriticism of universalism. Since the 1960s and espe-cially the 1970s, decolonization movements andpostcolonial theory have denounced the universal-ism of those in power whose celebration of allegeduniversal values, in fact, conceals practices of domi-nation and exploitation (Wieviorka, 2013). Feministtheory, radical social theory and postmodernismhave played a relevant role in the debate. Although indifferent ways, all these theoretical perspectivesdefied universalism giving priority to situation,socio-historical variability and contingency; theystimulated an open war over the ‘canon’ (Derrida,1972; Rattansi, 1999) and a radical deconstructionof – white, male – domination; they also contributedto carrying on an acute critique of patriarchal soci-eties (Narayan and Harding, 2000) andEurocentrism (Shohat and Stam, 1994).

Criticism of universalism also entails criticism offixed identity and exclusive belonging. A construc-tivist point of view is supported against an essential-ist standpoint that conceives identity and differenceas the deepest and more authentic nucleus, which isthe basis for the existence of the individual and thegroup. Identity and difference are seen as products ofcontinuous mediation, comparison, adjustment,translation and conflict between differentiated possi-bilities (Amselle, 1990; Hannerz, 1992; Young,1995). Current economic and cultural globalizationas well as migratory phenomena contribute toundermining the idea that individuals and groupsare characterized by single and permanent identities,and that the nation-state can be synonymous withuniversal values (Beck, 2006).

Ethnic difference, in particular, is seen as a resultof power and violence, the outcome of hierarchy andconflict that distinguish imperial and colonial power(Gilroy, 2006). Western societies – and not onlywestern societies – are and have always been ‘multi-cultural’. Current political multiculturalism – as wellas its critics – focuses on ethnic and religious differ-ence, depicting it as a ‘natural given’; in so doing, it

5


neglects the power and the violence that producesuch a difference (Gilroy, 2005).

While liberal multiculturalism defends ethicaluniversals – freedom, autonomy, tolerance – andcommunitarianism emphasizes group membership,critical multiculturalism (Goldberg, 1994; May,1999) is about empowering the disempowered, con-testing dominant groups, challenging their ‘canon’and transforming their institutions and discourses. Ithighlights differences ‘within’ groups, not only dif-ference ‘between’ groups (Yuval-Davis, 1999). It isnot about the ‘recognition of difference’, as a pureacknowledgement of the existence of reified andstereotyped ‘others’ which should be ‘included’;instead, it critically focuses on the social and politi-cal construction of white male supremacy and thedispensation of white male hegemony. The decon-struction of dominant positions, rather than therecognition and the inclusion of the dominated,becomes the focus of analysis (McLaren, 1997).What is really at stake in the multicultural debate isneither the recognition of identity nor the endorse-ment of collective rights but the unmasking of thefoundation of (white, male) domination (Hage,2000). Multiculturalism, in this case, unveils racismand counters the invisible and taken-for-granted pre-suppositions that define the setting for the entitle-ment of rights, power and privileges; it alsoconstitutes a readjustment of unequal relations ofpower and exploitation between dominants and thedominated (Hall, 2000).

Put into its precise historical perspective, multi-culturalism is not the result of the encounterbetween ‘pure’ and ‘well-defined’ culturally differentgroups; instead, it is the attempt to redefine powerrelations between mixed and changing forms ofpolitical identification (Gunew, 2004). The binarycontrast between the particularism of ‘minority’demands for the recognition of difference versus theuniversalism of the ‘majority’ civic rationality is ren-dered impracticable by the postcolonial experience.It becomes evident that there are – and there havealways been – many relevant differences ‘within’ anygroup, and, therefore, also the alleged ‘authenticity’,‘homogeneity’ and ‘unity’ of the ‘autochthonous’ ischallenged (Hall, 2000). Rather than attesting thedifferent nature of different cultures, multicultural-ism highlights the character of social construction ofany culture and identity; it shows that culture andidentity are more the result of history and powerthan of biology or fate.

Multiculturalism as a feature of currentglobal societiesIn its descriptive terms, multiculturalism refers tosome peculiar characteristics of current societies. It

focuses not only on the way in which cultural differ-ences are produced and reproduced, but also on thequestions and tensions these processes generate,including the proposals for political and institution-al procedures for dealing with them (Wieviorka,1998).

Managing cultural difference is hardly a new phe-nomenon. In the past, societies we now call multi-cultural, were usually defined as ‘multinational’,‘multi-ethnic’ or just ‘plural’. Nevertheless, multicul-turalism highlights specific aspects and poses specif-ic questions. The point is that multiculturalism doesnot simply refer to the mundane fact that complexmodern societies are characterized by cultural diver-sity; instead, it refers to the fact that the meaningattributed to cultural diversity in western societieshas radically changed since the second half of the lastcentury. Rather than being the simple result of a‘quantitative’ increase of ‘difference’ or a ‘demo-graphic fact’, it represents the effort to find a newcultural, legal and political accommodation of cul-tural difference, replacing older forms of social (gen-der, ethnic and racial) hierarchy (Kymlicka, 2012).Therefore, it is difficult to understand multicultural-ism without putting cultural difference in its appro-priate context. Cultural, economic and politicalfactors – and their combinations – have been indi-cated as causes of a significant change in the notionof cultural difference following the Second WorldWar (Semprini, 1997). Cultural factors refer to therole of the ‘new social movements’ (Touraine, 1997;Wieviorka, 1996) and their struggle against assimila-tion and the melting-pot ideology (Rex, 1996).Multiculturalism is part of a larger human rights rev-olution involving ethnic and racial diversity(Baumann, 1999; Kymlicka, 2012). Economic fac-tors include the success of market ideology and thecrisis of the Fordist model of production (Constant,2000; Goldberg, 1994). Political factors embrace theend of the Cold War (Beck, 2006) and the subse-quent crisis of nation-states (Habermas, 2001); crisisthat is also connected to the intensification of glob-alization processes, the changes in the characteristicsof migration flows and the effort of the nation-statesto control their boundaries (Bloemraad et al., 2008).

The sociological perspective insists on the socialconstruction of identity and difference, counteringessentialism and reification. It aims to show theinconsistency and pitfalls of considering national,ethnic and religious cultures as finished objectswhose features have been defined through long his-torical processes and have now to be preservedunchanged. In this way, culture becomes a determin-istic device that influences and even shapes theactions and thoughts of all its alleged members,depriving them of agency (Baumann, 1999; Phillips,

6


2007). Without a sociologically informed concept ofcultural difference, multiculturalism ends up foster-ing new forms of discrimination, only superficiallymasked by respect and recognition of difference. Anall-too-quick reification of the identities of a givengroup has often frozen existing group differences,strengthening the position of specific elites withincommunities and reproducing ancient hierarchies.

Yet, the essentialist view of culture cannot easilybe dismissed because culture constitutes a politicaltool in arguing for rights and exemptions, recogni-tion and group privileges. Effective social use of cul-tural difference requires a dual competence(Baumann, 1999): the capacity to produce and toovercome distinctions according to situations andpersonal and collective aims. Cultural differenceneeds a certain degree of credibility and stability inorder to be effective, but risks losing this effective-ness if it cannot be adjusted to the specific situationin which it is used. Dual competence not onlydepends on the will or the sensitivity of the individ-ual, but it also suffers under structural constraintsand conditions of power which transcend the ration-al abilities and strategies of the person involved.

Multiculturalism poses the tricky question ofcombining difference and identity, reification andongoing production, ‘drawing together on the sameterrain those formal incommensurables of politicalvocabularies – liberty and equality with difference,“the good” with “the right” ’ (Hall, 2000: 235).Accepting and taking this ambivalence seriously mayresult in a more complex, fragmented and heteroge-neous civil sphere (Alexander, 2001, 2013; Kivisto,2010) that makes the expansion of democratic par-ticipation possible. Rather than being solved in theabstract, at the level of a new theory of justice,ambivalent requests coming from multiculturaldebates may be negotiated and reconciled in practice(Werbner, 2005; Wieviorka, 2013).

From this perspective, analysis focuses on themeaning and practice of multiculturalism, both atthe level of state policies and of local relationships.Analysis draws attention to how cultural differencebecomes a political tool for claiming rights andinclusion or, vice versa, it turns into a justificationfor exclusion. Multiculturalism is conceived as an ongoing political accomplishment, a practicalresource that can be used either in defence of (cultur-al, human) rights or in defence of communal solidar-ity.

The multicultural backlash

In 1997 Nathan Glazer published We Are AllMulticulturalists Now to suggest – maybe rather too

optimistically – that recognition and respect of cul-tural difference had become a permanent feature ofwestern society. Not many years later, around theturn of the millennium, we witnessed widespreadtalk of a necessary retreat from multiculturalism,which was a failure and had ended up fostering socialfragmentation, parallel lives and terrorist groups.The multiculturalism backlash became stronger alsofor a sequence of tragic events and hot debates that,notwithstanding their diversity, all have been impor-tant in influencing public debate. First, there was aseries of urban riots (Oldham, UK, in 2001, Parisbanlieues, France, and Cronulla Beach, Australia, in2005) described as fights between immigrants orchildren of immigrants and local youth. In the pressand in political discourses, the riots were presentedas being caused by the inability or unwillingness ofimmigrants to integrate, encouraged as they were tolive parallel lives by generous multicultural policiesthat pushed them to feel apart from the rest of thepopulation. Second, were the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004 in the Netherlands,the 7/7 2005 terrorist bombing in London and harshdiscussions in most western countries on the necessi-ty to counter (Islamic) religious fundamentalism,issuing laws to ban the wearing of Islamic head-scarves in public spaces or the building of mosques.

As a result, talks of a necessary retreat from mul-ticulturalism as a normative ideal and as a set of poli-cies spread in all western countries. It may be usefulto discuss in some detail four different criticisms.

Conservative, right-wing criticismConservative critics accuse multiculturalism of giv-ing exaggerated support to minority group identitiesand cultures, in so doing weakening the originallocal culture. They often depict ‘a zero-sum war’between cultures (Auster, 2004; Huntington, 1996),with multicultural policies favouring illiberal, anti-modern and anti-democratic minority groups whileblaming the majority group of being ethnocentricand racist. Uncritical acceptance of habits, customs,values and languages far from, if not opposed to,those of the majority, is diminishing western identi-ty, its institution and its beliefs. Cultural pluralism,so the criticism goes, reinforces aggressive minoritygroups and neglects the value of the specific andunique history of liberal, democratic western culture,condemning it to extinction. The majority groupmust take pride in its own culture and enhance it bymaking the most of national belonging and internalcohesion. It must expect minority groups to observemajority rules and values and show willingness toassimilate before it grants them recognition andrespect.

Islam is often the specific target of this criticism.

7


Muslims are seen to be particularly reluctant to inte-grate and to adopt western values, embracing funda-mentalism and trying to impose their own laws andway of life. The retreat from multicultural policiesand the rebalancing of tolerance are regarded as thenecessary response to a clash between an aggressive,separatist and integralist Muslim identity and theliberal values of freedom of expression, separation ofchurch and state, women’s and gay rights.

‘We must defend our identity’ arguments havebeen criticized for considering identities and culturesas homogeneous and fixed, neglecting internal dif-ference and conflicts. Reified cultures are presentedas incommensurable and unavoidably destined toclash. In this way, a new form of racism is fostered(Back et al., 2012; Gilroy, 2012; Kundnani, 2012;Poynting et al., 2004) in which the focus moves fromthe biological notion of ‘race’ to ‘race as culture, eth-nicity and religion’. A new form of racism emerges,of which Islamophobia (Modood, 2007; Poyntingand Mason, 2007; Romeyn, 2014) is its harshestmanifestation.

Is multiculturalism harmful for women?The alleged contraposition between multicultural-ism and women’s rights – although avoiding identityarguments – is also a central point of discussion forpart of the women’s movement. Susan Moller Okin(1999) observes that there could be a contradictionbetween the multicultural idea that all cultures areentitled to equal respect and concern and the protec-tion of women’s rights. Many of the cultures multi-culturalism aims to protect do not accept theprinciple that people are owed equal rights, and theyendorse practices that severely penalize some groupswithin the community. This is particularly true forwomen that are often – on the basis of alleged cul-tural, traditional or religious reasons – exposed tounfair treatment: differential nutrition and healthcare, unequal rights of ownership and political par-ticipation, unequal vulnerability to violence, and thedenial of educational opportunities, to name only afew.

Migrant groups are often more patriarchal thanthe majority; allowing them to persist with their cus-toms results in the collapse of women’s freedom andthe erosion of the hard-fought conquests of thewomen’s movement. Establishing group rights toenable some minority culture to preserve itself maynot be in the best interest of women, even if it ben-efits men. Actually, women of minority groups‘might be much better off if the culture into whichthey were born were either to become extinct (so thatits members would become integrated into the lesssexist surrounding culture) or, preferably, to beencouraged to alter itself so as to reinforce the equal-

ity of women – at least to the degree to which thisvalue is upheld in the majority culture‘ (Okin, 1999:22–3).

Responses to Okin’s remarks stress the pitfalls ofa too clear-cut and simplistic division between west-ern liberal society – deemed less patriarchal – andminority cultures. Western liberal regimes are notalways ‘less patriarchal’ than other regimes; they aredifferently so (Honig, 1999). Recognizing the vari-ous ways of looking at gender roles in other culturesmight heighten western women’s critical awarenessof some of the limits, as well as the benefits, of a lib-eral way of life. The essentialist idea of culture isproblematic also because it conceals differences with-in groups. Condemning practices is not the same ascondemning so-called cultural groups, and culturalpractices may have different meanings for ‘insiders’and for ‘outsiders’ (Anthias, 2002). The possibilitythat women in other cultures may conceive freedomin another way is totally overlooked (Al-Hibri,1999), with the risk of imposing the point of view ofwhite dominant women as ‘universal’.

National-solidarity criticismOne of the most relevant criticisms blames multicul-turalism for weakening social cohesion. Policies thatallow minority groups to maintain their own cul-tures and identities encourage ethnic separatism andpromote racial, ethnic and cultural balkanization(Goodhart, 2004; Malik, 2009). The current back-lash is justified by the evident failure of multicultur-alism policies, especially in incorporating migrants(Brubaker, 2001; Joppke, 2004). Rather than facili-tating integration and improving equality, supportand recognition of cultural difference of minoritygroups, these policies have promoted indifferenceand parallel lives. As a result, social cohesion haswithered, eroding the very foundation of social life.Supporters of liberalism stress the importance of ashared sense of belonging in order to feel involved inpublic affairs, to participate in public life and tomanifest solidarity for the less privileged (Barry,2001). Without a certain degree of nationalism, theidea of belonging to the same community and shar-ing a language, democracy is at risk. Liberal stateshave to impose liberal principles and a communitycohesion agenda must replace multiculturalism if wewant to make a progressive shift towards realisticrecognition of the ambivalent task for any liberaldemocratic state: to grant solidarity among membersand encourage recognition of (individual) particular-ity (Joppke, 2008; Thomas, 2011). In order to pro-mote effective integration of minority groups, thestate must promote what is common and shared overwhat is specific and divisive. Insisting that theminority group share the fundamental principles of

8


the majority’s way of life, its language and its institu-tions fosters integration and equal social participa-tion (Miller, 2002). Rather than pushing migrantgroups to preserve their traditions, state policiesshould promote the values of freedom and democra-cy because effective integration requires a genuinewillingness to accept and endorse the core values ofwestern societies. Social cohesion (or ‘civic integra-tion’) policies should replace multicultural policies,for a successful incorporation into a host society restsnot only on economic and political integration butalso on individual commitments to characteristicstypifying national belonging: knowledge of the his-tory of the country, language proficiency and explic-it endorsement of liberal and social values(Goodman, 2010: 754; Joppke, 2007).

Integration cannot be the initiative solely of themajority. In order to be integrated migrants mustshow their desire to be so, and accept the sacrifice ofgiving up aspects of their own culture that do not fitinto that of the majority. Making immigration poli-cies more selective, welfare benefits not immediatelyavailable to new immigrants and strengthening thesymbolic aspects of citizenship (Goodhart, 2004) allhelp in giving support to redistributive welfare stateprogrammes and allow for effective social equality.

These criticisms have been accused of supportinga regressive step towards coercive and ethnocentricassimilationism (Back et al., 2002). Social cohesionstresses moral and social order and echoes the tradi-tional view of social integration as social control. Itreduces community belonging to mechanical soli-darity, homogeneity and sameness. Equality andsocial justice are replaced by an emphasis on belong-ing, inclusion, governance, absence of conflict andco-responsibility (Eizaguirre et al., 2012). Anotherimportant shift occurs (Ratcliffe and Newman,2011): ethnic and religious difference (and its recog-nition by the state) are blamed for a lack of integra-tion and social cohesion that, in fact, is mainly dueto structural inequality and poverty.

Progressive criticismThe alleged multiculturalist failure to redress socio-economic inequality is the specific focus of progres-sive criticism. From this point of view,multiculturalism overstressed culture, concealing thereal economic reasons for the discrimination andexclusion of minority groups. Under the apparentlyfavourable intention of protecting cultural differ-ence, the reality that minority groups suffer harshinequality remains hidden. The supposed differencemulticulturalism policies aim to recognize and pre-serve is, actually, negative disparity in education,employment, rates of incarceration and housing con-ditions. Overcoming social discrimination may

require more redistribution than recognition or, atleast, a mix of the two (Fraser, 2007).

Integration requires social cohesion as well aspolicies against discrimination and poverty.Discriminated people cannot be empowered by pro-tecting their culture – which often means separationand indifference – instead, they need material help.They ask for participation and inclusion rather thanto be left in isolation; their decision to migrate isproof of their desire to leave their traditions behindand embrace the lifestyle of the country in whichthey settle. Asking them to commit to learning andusing the language and adopting the way of life isnot an imposition of majority rules; instead, it is anecessary step towards their effective integration.

A more realistic policy is needed in which bothprotection against discrimination and social cohe-sion are granted. Rather than policies that promote‘bonding’ social capital – that is, cohesion ‘within’defined communities – the state must promote poli-cies that strengthen ‘bridging’ social capital – that is,overlapping networks ‘between’ different communi-ties (Putnam, 2000). The former include assistancein preserving the minority language and traditions;the latter support the learning of the necessary lin-guistic and behavioural skills for communicationand being accepted as part of the community. Fromthis point of view, multiculturalist policies that sup-ported the preservation of minority culture havebeen deleterious because too much cultural differ-ence erodes the level of bridging capital, hinderingimmigrants’ civic and political participation.

Progressive criticisms have been accused of pro-moting a new form of assimilation in which thedominant culture is reified and minorities arerequired to endorse it and fit in as a condition oftheir acceptance and participation. By relatingbelonging to social cohesion, the first becomes a pre-requisite for the second (Yuval-Davis et al., 2005)transforming integration into a new form of disci-pline and control that selects immigrants deemed‘good’ and ‘helpful’ while legitimizing the exclusionof those considered ‘too diverse’ and not willing orable to integrate.

Trends in current research on multicultural societies

Assessing multicultural policiesThe effective consistency of the multiculturalismbacklash is hotly debated and the greater part of current empirical research focuses on assessing themagnitude and effectiveness of multicultural policies(MCPs), correlating diverse multiculturalism indiceswith different outcomes.

9


An initial direction of analysis agrees with theexistence of a retreat from multicultural policies incurrent western societies but disputes that this is dueto a failure of such policies. It focuses instead ongrowing hostility to immigration and on concernsabout unemployment and the economic condition(Lentin and Titley, 2012; Pakulski and Markowski,2014). Migrants – especially illegal and ‘false’ asy-lum-seekers – are accused of welfare parasitism,reluctance to integrate and criminality. All this gen-erates a climate of antagonism and hatred for immi-grants and legitimizes policies that restrictimmigration and immigrant rights. Political leadersexploit this trend and ride the wave of publicapproval to gain consent, describing multicultural-ism as a failure and promoting less tolerant and moreassimilationist policy strategies (Lesinska, 2014;Walsh, 2014).

A second important trend of analysis questionsthe real magnitude of the multiculturalism backlash(Kymlicka, 2012; Rattansi, 2011; Vertovec andWessendorf, 2010). Criticism of multiculturalismsucceeds because it depicts multiculturalism in asimplistic and distorted way. Current criticisms tar-get ‘strong multiculturalism’ – institutional recogni-tion for difference in the public sphere, with specialprovision for language and welfare state benefits formembers of minority groups – which has rarely beenimplemented. Effective multiculturalism policies arecloser to a ‘weak multiculturalism’ (Grillo, 2007)which aims to avoid discrimination of minoritygroups in employment, housing, education, healthand welfare. This form of multicultural integrationremains a valid option for western societies.

Recently, drawing on an updated version of theMulticulturalism Policy Index (MPI) – introducedby Banting et al. (2006) – Banting and Kymlicka(2013) give an accurate assessment of the allegedwholesale dismissal of multiculturalism in favour ofcivic integration policies. The current version of MPIaccounts for the presence or absence of multicultur-al policies in 21 western democracies in three distinctyears: 1980, 2000 and 2010. It scores each countryfor each point in time, depending on the extent towhich it has implemented eight different policies:formal legislative or parliamentary affirmation ofmulticulturalism; adoption of MCPs in education;inclusion of minority representation/sensitivity inthe mandate of public media; exemption from dresscodes, Sunday-closing legislation, etc.; allowing dualcitizenship; funding of minority organizations tosupport cultural activities; funding of bilingual ormother-tongue education; and affirmative action fordisadvantaged minority groups. (The index is avail-able at http://www.queensu.ca/mcp/.)

The diachronic international comparison shows

that while a small number of countries, includingmost notably the Netherlands, have weakened estab-lished MCPs during the 2000s, such a shift is theexception. Actually, most countries that adoptedMCPs at the end of the twentieth century haveretained their programmes in the first decade of thenew century, and a significant number of countrieshave added new ones. Based on these data, Bantingand Kymlicka affirm that there is no evidence for amulticulturalism retreat or for a shift from MCPstowards civic integration policies. The latter areoften layered on top of existing multicultural pro-grammes, leading to a blended approach to diversity.The authors conclude that MCPs are still importantfor the promotion of effective and fair minority inte-gration.

A more critical assessment of multicultural poli-cies emerges from Ruud Koopmans’s (2013) analysis.Comparing cross-national differences in multicul-tural policies on the basis of two indexes – the MPIand the Indicators of Citizenship Rights forImmigrants (ICRI) – he suggests that multiculturalpolicies have had little effect on socio-economic inte-gration, some positive impact on political integra-tion and negative effects on socio-culturalintegration: in particular, when multicultural poli-cies combined with a generous welfare state theyhave led immigrants to depend on welfare benefitsand hence to social and economic marginalization,lowering incentives to acquire the linguistic skillsand interethnic contacts (Koopmans, 2010).

Citrin et al. (2014), correlating the MPI withattitudes towards immigration and political supportin 16 European democracies that have experiencedsignificant immigration in the past decade, observethat extensive adoption of multicultural policiesmagnifies the degree to which hostility to immigra-tion is negatively associated with political support.They state that multiculturalism widens the gap inpolitical support between pro- and anti-immigrantopinion groups, furnishing ongoing opportunitiesfor rightist fringe parties to capitalize on anti-immi-grant sentiment among the politically alienated.

The hypothesis that public support of culturaldifference induces people to distrust their neigh-bours and engage less in public life (Putman, 2007)has been thoroughly investigated with opposingresults. While some studies have found diversity tohave negative effects on social cohesion and nationalidentification (e.g. Agirdag et al., 2011; Andersonand Paskeviciute, 2006; Laurence, 2011) and onimmigrant integration (Wright, 2011), others havenot (e.g. Hooghe et al., 2009; Sturgis et al., 2011) orsuggest that MCPs increase social trust in more eco-nomically equal societies (Kesler and Bloemraad,2010), reduce social distance (Heath and Demireva,

10


2014) and decrease anti-minority prejudice(Weldon, 2006).

The effects of MCPs on the welfare state havebeen extensively analysed by Banting and Kymlicka(2006). Their studies suggest that public recognitionand support for ethnocultural minorities to maintaintheir distinct cultural characteristics help to strength-en the welfare state rather than having a corrosiveeffect. They conclude that there is no evidence ofMCPs eroding trust, solidarity or support for redis-tribution. Other studies (Bloemraad, 2006; Wrightand Bloemraad, 2012) show that MCPs can facilitateimmigrants’ collective action and political participa-tion, supporting socio-political inclusion and pro-moting civic integration.

These differing results in assessing the effects ofMCPs suggest the necessity of a more cautious use –and a more precise operationalization – of multi-faceted and dynamic concepts such as social cohe-sion, belonging, identification and integration(Ariely, 2014; Reitz et al., 2009). They also push tofurther disaggregate multiculturalism and leave ade-quate room for the variations within and betweencountries in policies and discourse directed at cultur-al minorities. Rather than assessing MCPs as awhole, the contradictory results invite analysis ofwhat effects, if any, specific MCPs have on particularoutcomes in diverse contexts.

Analysing multicultural attitudes andidentityA second important trend of research concerns thesocio-psychological effects of multiculturalism, espe-cially on interethnic attitudes and interactions, mul-ticultural education and multicultural identity(Arasaratnam, 2013). In this case, multiculturalismis mainly conceived as regarding individual attitudes,groups and group identities, rather than state policies(Verkuyten and Martinovic, 2006).

Many studies discuss topics that relate to majori-ty and minority group attitudes towards multicultur-alism and the variables that influence them. Overall,this type of analysis underlines a difference betweenmajority and minority attitudes towards multicultur-alism. Minority group members generally prefer tomaintain their own culture and show morefavourable attitudes towards multiculturalism thanmajority group members (Liu, 2007; Verkuyten andThijs, 2002). Their endorsement of multiculturalismcan be seen as both a strategy to improve their socialstatus and a reaction towards perceived discrimina-tion. In contrast, majority group members generallyprefer that the minority be assimilated (Zagefka etal., 2007). The more the majority group membersidentify with their in-group, the more they can beexpected to try to protect their group interests and

status (Verkuyten and Brug, 2004). Older, less edu-cated people and extrinsic believers – characterizedby an instrumental approach to religion – generallyshow less favourable attitudes towards cultural diver-sity.

These differences are mainly interpreted into theframework of group threat theory (Evans and Need,2002; McLaren, 2003; Quillian, 1995). The (realis-tic or perceived) threat from a minority and subordi-nate group is often seen as the single best indicatorof negative attitudes towards out-groups (Paxton andMughan 2006).

John B Berry (1974, 1980; Berry et al., 2006)elaborates an influential typology for studying accul-turation (i.e. the ways people prefer to live in inter-cultural contact situations), using it to assesspersonal adjustment (behavioural competence andpsychological and emotional wellbeing) and inter-cultural relation policies in plural societies (Berry,2013).

Berry’s acculturation model describes four prefer-ences ethnic/cultural minority members might haveabout how they want to live in intercultural contactsituations. Two separate dimensions underlie thesepreferences: that of maintaining one’s heritage, cul-ture and identity (‘culture maintenance’), and that ofhaving contact with and participating in the largersociety along with other ethnocultural groups (‘con-tact’). These two dimensions of ‘culture mainte-nance’ and ‘contact’ lead to the four acculturationpreferences: integration, assimilation, separation andmarginalization. When referring to strategies of thelarger society, the same four preferences may berespectively defined: multiculturalism, melting-pot,segregation and exclusion.

Many studies using this typology consistentlyshow that favourable outcomes in wellbeing occurwhen people are oriented towards a multiculturalstrategy: they are interested in maintaining boththeir original culture and daily interactions withother groups (for a meta-analysis of studies influ-enced by this model, see Nguyen and Benet-Martinez, 2013). In this case, a strong, positive andsignificant association emerges with both psycholog-ical adjustment (higher life satisfaction and self-esteem; less alienation, anxiety, depression) andsocio-cultural adjustment (higher academic achieve-ment, career success, greater civic and political par-ticipation; fewer behavioural problems, such asdelinquency and risky sexual behaviours).Multicultural policies and programmes that promotethe right of all people to maintain their own cultureand to participate fully in the life of the larger society, and that push all groups (both the dominantand non-dominant) to engage in a process of mutu-al exchange and change, provide the cultural and

11


psychological basis to enhance positive interculturalrelations (Berry, 2011).

Another important trend of analysis concernsissues of identity development in multicultural con-texts (Benet-Martinez and Hong, 2014). Researchfocuses on how and to what extent multiculturalexperiences promote the development of identitiesthat are open-ended, adaptive and aware of theirsocially constructed and contextually dependentcharacter (Brunsma et al., 2013; Kim, 2008).Overall, studies on multicultural identity suggestthat persons who have significant exposure to multi-cultural situations are likely to develop multiple andflexible identities, they are less ethnocentric andmore open to effective intercultural communication(Arasaratnam, 2013).

Analysing everyday multiculturalpracticesFinally, it is worth noting an increasing interest in‘everyday multiculturalism’ (Wise and Velayutham,2009) and ‘everyday urban’ (Amin, 2002), i.e. thedaily negotiation of cultural difference in urban con-texts. In this case, multiculturalism is conceived asneither a social policy challenge, nor an attitudinalissue (psychological attitude, individual adaptation).Instead, it is mainly conceived as a social practice:the mundane interaction in everyday life in intercul-tural contexts.

‘Everyday multiculturalism’ refers to both a cate-gory of analysis and a category of practices (Semi etal., 2009). The former refers to an analytical perspec-tive that aims to grasp the way in which people pro-duce, reproduce, transform and challenge culturaldifference in everyday interactions, stressing themicro and macro conditions that make a specificsocial construction of cultural difference and identi-ty possible and credible. Difference is viewed as a‘practice’, an ongoing performance, a political tool,as the local transformation of the reified representa-tions of difference and belonging that are construct-ed on a global scale (in political discourse and themass media) in relational tools, resources for action.As a category of practices, everyday multiculturalismfocuses on the use of difference in localized spaces,on situations of ‘banal’ daily routines in whichknowing how to ‘face’ and ‘use’ difference is a mun-dane, ordinary and necessary skill.

Analyses focusing on everyday multiculturalismgenerally use qualitative methodology – ethnograph-ic observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups andvisual sociology – to highlight when, how and inwhich way categorizations, belonging and identitiesare constructed and deconstructed in daily interac-tions (Butcher and Harris, 2010; Noble et al., 1999;Sarat, 2002).

Gerd Baumann (1996) has shown how peopleinteracting in multicultural contexts have a dual dis-cursive and practical competence when it comes toculture: they consider it both an essential, constitu-tive, reified ‘given’ and a processual, ongoing, ever-changing construct. Observing practical uses ofdifference in multicultural contexts, it is possible togo beyond the attempt to collocate people in fixedand stable categories (multiculturalists vs assimilatedvs isolated vs integralists) and to focus on the ways inwhich people construct, resist, translate and mediatesocial categories in daily relationships. The way inwhich people can use cultural difference in specificcontexts reflects both structural constraints andagency (Bernstein, 1997; Blockland, 2003). Animportant aspect of focusing on everyday multicul-turalism is the acknowledgement that contemporarymulticultural societies are not simply collections of‘equal diversities’, but reflect the power relations too.Consequently, an investigation of everyday multicul-turalism is also an investigation of claim-making,expressions of citizenship and struggles for recogni-tion (Back, 1996; Harris, 2009: 191; Räthzel, 2008;Watson, 2009).

Certain studies highlight the potential for cultur-al difference to be dissolved in everyday encountersthrough a process of mixing and hybridization(Wilson, 2011; Wise, 2009; Wulfhorst et al., 2014).They stress the fact that some ordinary situations –everyday encounters at the city market or at the play-ground, exchange and gift relations among neigh-bours, etc. – create a feeling of being involved withothers that produces tolerance and promotes inclu-sion. These studies advance a critique of multicultur-al policies aimed at reducing or stabilizing theminority group members’ identity into narrow cate-gories of belonging that hinder the mundane capac-ity to mix, change and find new arrangements.

Young people, in particular, show the capacity touse difference in strategic and tactical ways and takefor granted the hybrid and fluid nature of belonging,identity and citizenship in contemporary multiplesociety (Harris, 2013). Dual cultural competencebecomes a necessary skill because being autonomousand self-fulfilled in a global society may mean notonly claiming mobility rights, multiple belonging,hybrid and changeable identities, but also fightingfor the recognition of common cultural roots, sharedhistory and the preservation of specific languages orhabits from the tyranny of the dominant group,making use of alleged essentialist and reified identi-ties (Yeĝenoĝlu, 2005).

In this constant shifting between reification,resistance, mediation and challenge, the concept ofintegration changes: it no longer only refers to beingaccepted, on an equal basis, by a local or national

12


community; it also means being allowed to partici-pate, without exclusion, in the global flux, claimingthe right, if necessary, to freely manifest one’s owndifferences and expect public recognition. Equalityand difference become tools for claiming participa-tion and avoiding exclusion. What is really at stake isnot the recognition of strong and stable identities ordifferences, but inclusion in, or exclusion from,social contexts that may offer relevant material, sym-bolic, affective or ludic opportunities (Colombo,2010).

Others studies are more cautious towards the ten-dency to romanticize intercultural encounters (Ho,2011; Valentine, 2008; Valentine and Sadgrove,2012); they stress the importance of conflict and payattention to power and socio-spatial inequality. Theycriticize multiculturalist policies aimed at promotingintercultural encounters without taking social andpolitical disparity and discrimination into account.

Examination of everyday practices invites analysisbeyond the normative debate on the foundations ofa fair multicultural society and to focus, instead, onhow cultural difference is produced and negotiatedand how social relations and identities are shapedand reshaped in the process.

Annotated further reading

Barry B (2001) Culture and Equality: An EgalitarianCritique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.One of the most influential and radical liberalcritiques of multiculturalism. It defends universalisticcitizenship stating that rights accorded on the basis ofcultural group membership contradict egalitarianliberal norms and lessen individual freedom.

Baumann G and Vertovec S (eds) (2011)Multiculturalism: Critical Concepts in Sociology.London: Routledge.This four-volume anthology constitutes a usefulcollection of some of the most relevant contributionsto the multicultural debate. It incorporates a largenumber of authors and a wide range of topics. There-published articles range from criticism of the ideaof a plural society in the 1960s and 1970s, to thecentral topics in multicultural discussions in the1990s, up to the most recent debates about thealleged crisis and transformations ofmulticulturalism.

Benhabib S (2002) The Claims of Culture: Equality andDiversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.This book goes beyond the exhausted debate aboutthe conflict and the irreconcilability betweenindividual and collective rights or liberal andcommunitarian philosophy. Criticizing an essentialistidea of culture, it develops Habermas’s ideas of

communicative reason or communicative rationalityand proposes deliberative democracy as a practicalway to expand individual rights through therecognition of collective belonging.

Gunew S (2004) Haunted Nations: The ColonialDimension of Multiculturalism. London: Routledge.A significant example of the importance of apostcolonial perspective on and a comparativehistorical analysis of multiculturalism. It highlightsthe ways in which relations between culturalminorities and majorities operated, embedded inspecific moments in history and related to thepolitics of race and indigeneity.

Gutmann A (ed.) (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining thePolitics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.This edited volume presents, in the first part, CharlesTaylor’s ground-breaking paper ‘The politics ofrecognition’ with the comments by Susan Wolf,Steven Rockefeller and Michael Walzer. The secondpart contains two other relevant contributions, byJürgen Habermas and Antony Appiah. It collectssome of the seminal work that set the stage for thenormative philosophical debate about the importanceand the pitfalls of recognizing cultural difference inliberal states.

Kymlicka W (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford:Oxford University Press.A classic text that attempts to suggest some keyconcepts and principles for a liberal approach tominority rights. In particular, it argues that somecollective rights may be perfectly consistent with theliberal democratic tradition and suggests somecriteria to supplement liberal individual rights withminority rights.

Modood T (2007) Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea.Cambridge: Polity PressAn example of a defence of multiculturalismgrounded in a concept of equal citizenship able torecognize the importance of group membership.Specific attention is devoted to arguing for theimportance of allowing group identity politics andwithin that to include religious identity politics whenit is a means of empowering the excluded.

Phillips A (2007) Multiculturalism without Culture.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Another important example of rethinkingmulticulturalism avoiding essentialism and thereification of existing cultural differences. Specificattention is devoted to a gendered perspective onmulticulturalism placing individual agency at itscore.

Rattansi A (2011) Multiculturalism: A Very ShortIntroduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.An introductory albeit rigorous and sophisticatedtext that reviews major issues in the field andsuggests possible directions for moving on frommulticulturalism and its most critical pitfalls.

Vertovec S and Wessendorf S (eds) (2010) TheMulticultural Backlash: European Discourses, Policiesand Practices. London: Routledge.

13


This edited volume presents seven European and twoCanadian empirical analyses contrasting the allegedend of multiculturalism. It provides an informedassessment of the recent and current multiculturalismbacklash, suggesting that the emerging scepticismtowards multicultural policies has gained groundmore in public discourses than in policy-making. Ithighlights how public rhetoric shifted frommulticulturalism to social cohesion and integration,but suggests that this discourse shift is not actuallyreflected in everyday practices.

Wise A and Velayutham S (eds) (2009) EverydayMulticulturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.This edited book explores everyday lived experiencesof multicultural relationships in the urban context. Itproposes a sociological perspective that goes beyondnormative preoccupations of how society should beand empirically analyses how people manage, use andcontest cultural difference in order to give meaningto their daily experience.

References

Alexander JC (2001) Theorizing the ‘modes ofincorporation’: Assimilation, hyphenation, andmulticulturalism as varieties of civil participation.Sociological Theory 19(3): 237–49.

Alexander JC (2103) Struggling over the mode ofincorporation: Backlash against multiculturalism inEurope. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(4): 531–56.

Al-Hibri AY (1999) Is western patriarchal feminism goodfor third world/minority women? In: Cohen J,Howard M and Nussbaum M (eds) IsMulticulturalism Bad for Women? Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, pp. 41–6.

Amin A (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city:Living with diversity. Environment and Planning A34: 959–80.

Amselle JL (1990) Logiques métisses: anthropologie del’identité en Afrique et ailleurs, Paris: Payot.

Anderson CJ and Paskeviciute A (2006) How ethnic andlinguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects forcivil society: A comparative study of citizenshipbehavior. Journal of Politics 68(4): 783–802.

Anthias F (2002) Beyond feminism andmulticulturalism: Locating difference and the politicsof location. Women’s Studies International Forum25(3): 275-286.

Agirdag O, Van Houtte M and Van Avermaet P (2011)Ethnic school context and the national and sub-national identifications of pupils. Ethnic and RacialStudies 34(2): 357–78.

Arasaratnam LA (2013) A review of articles onmulticulturalism in 35 years of IJIR. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations 37(6): 676–85.

Ariely G (2014) Does diversity erode social cohesion?Conceptual and methodological issues. PoliticalStudies 62(3): 573–95.

Auster L (2004) How the multicultural ideologycaptured America. The Social Contract 14(2):

197–208.Back L (1996) New Ethnicities and Urban Culture:

Racism and Multiculture in Young Lives. London:Routledge.

Back L, Keith M, Khan A, Shukra K and Solomos J(2002) New Labour’s white heart: Politics,multiculturalism and the return of assimilation. ThePolitical Quarterly 73(4): 445–54.

Back L, Shamser S and Charlynne B (2012) Newhierarchies of belonging. European Journal of CulturalStudies 15(2): 139–54.

Banting K and Kymlicka W (eds) (2006)Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognitionand Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Banting K and Kymlicka W (2013) Is there really aretreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidencefrom the multiculturalism policy index. ComparativeEuropean Politics 11(5): 577–98.

Banting K, Johnston R, Kymlicka W and Soroka S.(2006) Do multiculturalism policies erode thewelfare state? An empirical analysis. In: Banting Kand Kymlicka W (eds) Multiculturalism and theWelfare State: Recognition and Redistribution inContemporary Democracies. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, pp. 49–91.

Barry B (2001) Culture and Equality: An EgalitarianCritique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Baumann G (1996) Contesting Culture: Discourses ofIdentity in Multi-ethnic London. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Baumann G (1999) The Multicultural Riddle. New York:Routledge.

Beck U (2006) Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Benet-Martinez V and Hong YY (eds) (2014) TheOxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity. New York:Oxford University Press.

Benhabib S (2002) The Claims of Culture: Equality andDiversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Bernstein M (1997) Celebration and suppression: Thestrategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gaymovement. The American Journal of Sociology 103(3):531–65.

Berry JW (1974) Psychological aspects of culturalpluralism. Culture Learning 2: 17–22.

Berry JW (1980) Acculturation as varieties ofAdaptation. In: Padilla A (ed.) Acculturation: Theory,Models and Some New Findings. Boulder, CO:Westview Press, pp. 9–25.

Berry JW (2011) Integration and multiculturalism: Waystowards social solidarity. Papers on SocialRepresentations 20(2): 1–21.

Berry JW (2013) Intercultural relations in pluralsocieties: Research derived from multiculturalismpolicy. Acta de investigación psicológica 3(2): 1122–35.

Berry JW, Phinney JS, Sam DL and Vedder P (eds)(2006) Immigrant Youth in Cultural Translation.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blockland T (2003) Ethnic complexity: Routes to

14


discriminatory repertoires in an inner-cityneighbourhood. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26(1):1–24.

Bloemraad I (2006) Becoming a Citizen: IncorporatingImmigrants and Refugees in the United States andCanada. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bloemraad I, Korteweg A and Yurdakul G (2008)Citizenship and immigration: Multiculturalism,assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state.Annual Review of Sociology 34: 153–9.

Brubaker R (2001) The return of assimilation? Changingperspectives on immigration and its sequels inFrance, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic andRacial Studies 24(4): 531–48.

Brunsma DL, Delgado D and Rockquemore KA (2013)Liminality in the multiracial experience: Towards aconcept of identity matrix. Identities: Global Studiesin Culture and Power 20(5): 481–502.

Butcher M and Harris A (2010) Pedestrian crossing:Young people and everyday multiculturalism. Journalof Intercultural Studies 31(5): 449–53.

Citrin J, Levy M and Wright M (2014) Multiculturalpolicy and political support in Europeandemocracies. Comparative Political Studies 47:1531–57.

Colombo E (2010) Crossing difference: How youngchildren of immigrants keep everydaymulticulturalism alive. Journal of Intercultural Studies31(5): 455–70.

Constant F (2000) Le Multiculturalisme. Paris:Flammarion.

Derrida J (1972) La Dissémination. Paris: Editions duSeuil.

Eizaguirre S, Pradel M, Terrones A, Martinez-Celorrio Xand Garcia M (2012) Multilevel governance andsocial cohesion: Bringing back conflict in citizenshippractices. Urban Studies 49(9): 1999–2016.

Evans G and Need A (2002) Explaining ethnicpolarization over attitudes towards minority rights inEastern Europe: A multilevel analysis. Social SciencesResearch 31(4): 653–80.

Fraser N (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections onthe ‘Postsocialist’ Condition. New York and London:Routledge.

Fraser N (2007) Identity, exclusion, and critique: Aresponse to four critics. European Journal of PoliticalTheory 6(3): 305–38.

Gilroy P (2005) Postcolonial Melancholia. New York.Columbia University Press.

Gilroy P (2006) Multiculturalism and post-colonialtheory. In: Dryzek J, Honig B and Phillips A (eds)The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press, pp. 656–74.

Gilroy P (2012) ‘My Britain is fuck all’: Zombiemulticulturalism and the race politics of citizenship.Identities: Global Studies in Cultures and Power 19(4):380–97.

Gitlin T (1995) The Twilight of Common Dreams: WhyAmerica is Wracked by Culture Wars. New York:Metropolitan Books.

Glazer N (1997) We Are All Multiculturalists Now.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldberg DT (1994) Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader.Oxford: Blackwell.

Goodhart D (2004) Too diverse? Is Britain becoming toodiverse to sustain the mutual obligations behind agood society and the welfare state? Prospect 95: 30–7.

Goodman SW (2010) Integration requirements forintegration’s sake? Identifying, categorising andcomparing civic integration policies. Journal of Ethnicand Migration Studies 36(5): 753–72.

Grillo R (2007) An excess of alterity? Debatingdifference in a multicultural society. Ethnic andRacial Studies 30(6): 979–98.

Gunew S (2004) Haunted Nations: The ColonialDimension of Multiculturalism. London: Routledge.

Habermas J (1994) Struggles for recognition in thedemocratic constitutional state. In: Gutmann A (ed.)Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics ofRecognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress, pp. 107–48.

Habermas J (2001) Postnational Constellation: PoliticalEssays. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hage G (2000) White Nation: Fantasies of WhiteSupremacy in a Multicultural Society. New York:Routledge.

Hall S (2000) Conclusion: The multi-cultural question.In: Hesse B (ed.) Unsettled Multiculturalisms:Diasporas, Entanglements, Transruptions. London: ZedBooks, pp. 209–41.

Hannerz U (1992) Cultural Complexity: Studies in theSocial Organization of Meaning. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Harris A (2009) Shifting the boundaries of culturalspaces: Young people and everyday multiculturalism.Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nationand Culture 15(2): 187–205.

Harris A (2013) Young People and EverydayMulticulturalism. New York: Routledge.

Heath A and Demireva N (2014) Has multiculturalismfailed in Britain? Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(1):161–80.

Ho C (2011) Respecting the presence of others: Schoolmicropublics and everyday multiculturalism. Journalof Intercultural Studies 32(6): 603–19.

Hollinger DA (1995) Postethnic America; BeyondMulticulturalism. New York: Basic Books.

Honig B (1999) ‘My culture made me do it’. In: CohenJ, Howard M and Nussbaum M (eds) IsMulticulturalism Bad for Women? Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, pp. 35–40.

Honneth A (1996) The Struggle for Recognition: TheMoral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

Hooghe M, Reeskens T, Stolle D and Trappers A (2009)Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Europe.Comparative Political Studies 42(2): 198–223.

Huntington SP (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of World Order. New York: Simon andSchuster.

15


Huntington SP (2004) Who Are We? The Challenges toAmerica’s National Identity. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Joppke C (2004) The retreat of multiculturalism in theliberal state: Theory and policy. The British Journal ofSociology 55(2): 237–57.

Joppke C (2007) Beyond national models: Civicintegration policies for immigrants in WesternEurope. West European Politics 30(1): 1–22.

Joppke C (2008) Immigration and the identity ofcitizenship: The paradox of universalism. CitizenshipStudies 12(6): 533–46.

Kesler C and Bloemraad I (2010) Does immigrationerode social capital? The conditional effects ofimmigration-generated diversity on trust,membership, and participation across 19 countries.Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2): 319–47.

Kim YY (2008) Intercultural personhood: Globalizationand a way of being. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations 32(4): 359–68.

Kivisto P (2010) Multiculturalism and racial democracy:State policies and social practices. In: Collin PH andSolomos J (eds) The Sage Handbook of Race andEthnic Studies. London: Sage, pp. 253–74.

Koopmans R (2010) Trade-offs between equality anddifference: Immigrant integration, multiculturalismand the welfare state in cross-national perspective.Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(1): 1–26.

Koopmans R (2013) Multiculturalism and immigration:A contested field in cross-national comparison.Annual Review of Sociology 39: 147–69.

Kundnani A (2012) Multiculturalism and itsdiscontents: Left, right and liberal. European Journalof Cultural Studies 15(2): 155–66.

Kymlicka W (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Kymlicka W (2012) Multiculturalism: Success, Failure,and the Future. Washington, DC: Migration PolicyInstitute.

Laurence J (2011) The effect of ethnic diversity andcommunity disadvantage on social cohesion: Amulti-level analysis of social capital and interethnicrelations in UK communities. European SociologicalReview 27(1): 70–89.

Lentin A and Titley G (2012) The crisis of‘multiculturalism’ in Europe: Mediated minarets,intolerable subjects. European Journal of CulturalStudies 15(2): 123–38.

Lesinska M (2014) The European backlash againstimmigration and multiculturalism. Journal ofSociology 50(1): 37–50.

Levy JT (2000) The Multiculturalism of Fear. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Liu S (2007) Living with others: Mapping the routes toacculturation in a multicultural society. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations 31(6): 761–78.

McLaren LM (2003) Anti-immigrant prejudice inEurope: Contact, threat perception, and preferencesfor the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces 81(3):909–36.

McLaren P (1997) Revolutionary Multiculturalism:Pedagogies of Dissent for the New Millennium.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Malik K (2009) From Fatwa to Jihad: the Rushdie Affairand its Legacy. London: Atlantic.

May S (ed.) (1999) Critical Multiculturalism: RethinkingMulticultural and Antiracist Education. London:Falmer Press.

Miller D (2002) Liberalism, equal opportunities andcultural commitments. In: Kelly P (ed.)Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equalityand its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 45–61.

Modood T (2007) Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Narayan U and Harding S (eds) (2000) Decentering theCenter: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial,and Feminist World. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress.

Nguyen AD and Benet-Martinez V (2013) Biculturalismand adjustment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44(1): 122–59.

Noble G, Poynting S and Tabar P (1999) Youth,ethnicity and the mapping of identities: Strategicessentialism and strategic hybridity among maleArabic-speaking youth in south-western Sydney.Communal/Plural 7(1): 29–44.

Okin SM (1999) Is multiculturalism bad for women? In:Cohen J, Howard M and Nussbaum M (eds) IsMulticulturalism Bad for Women? Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, pp. 7–24.

Pakulski J and Markowski S (2014) Globalisation,immigration and multiculturalism – the Europeanand Australian experiences. Journal of Sociology 50(1):3–9.

Parekh B (2002) Rethinking Multiculturalism: CulturalDiversity and Political Theory. Cambidge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Paxton P and Mughan A (2006) What’s to fear fromimmigrants? Creating an assimilationist threat scale.Political Psychology 27(4): 549–68.

Phillips A (2007) Multiculturalism without Culture.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Poynting S and Mason V (2007) The resistible rise ofIslamophobia. Anti-Muslim racism in the UK andAustralia before 11 September 2001. The Journal ofSociology 43(1): 61–86.

Poynting S, Noble G, Tabar P and Collins J (2004) BinLaden in the Suburb: Criminalising the Arab Other.Sydney: The Sydney Institute of Criminology.

Putnam RD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse andRevival of American Community. New York: Simonand Schuster.

Putnam RD (2007) E pluribus unum: Diversity andcommunity in the twenty-first century – the 2006Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian PoliticalStudies 30(2): 137–74.

Quillian L (1995) Prejudice as a response to perceivedgroup threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. AmericanSociological Review 60(4): 586–611.

16


Ratcliffe P and Newman I (eds) (2011) Promoting SocialCohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation.Bristol: Policy Press.

Räthzel N (ed.) (2006) Finding the Way Home.Göttingen: V&R Unipress.

Rattansi A (1999) Racism, ‘postmodernism’ and reflexivemulticulturalism. In: May S (ed.) CriticalMulticulturalism: Rethinking Multicultural andAntiracist Education. London: Falmer Press, pp.77–112.

Rattansi A (2011) Multiculturalism: A Very ShortIntroduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reitz JG, Breton R, Dion KK and Dion KL (2009)Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials andChallenges of Diversity. New York: Springer.

Rex J (1996) Ethnic Minorities in the Modern NationState. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Romeyn E (2014) Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia:Spectropolitics and immigration. Theory, Culture andSociety 31(6): 77–101.

Rorty R (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarat A (2002) The micropolitics of identity-difference:Recognition and accommodation in everyday life. In:Shweder RA, Minow M and Markus HR (eds)Engaging Cultural Differences: The MulticulturalChallenge in Liberal Democracies New York: RussellSage Foundation, pp. 396–416.

Schlesinger AM (1998) The Disuniting of America:Reflections on a Multicultural Society, revised andenlarged edn. New York: Norton.

Semi G, Colombo E, Camozzi I and Frisina A (2009)Practices of difference: Analysing multiculturalism ineveryday life. In: Wise A and Velayutham S (eds)Everyday Multiculturalism. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, pp. 66–84.

Semprini A (1997) Le Multiculturalisme. Paris: PUF.Shohat E and Stam R (1994) Unthinking Eurocentrism:

Multiculturalism and the Media. London: Routledge.Song S (2010) Multiculturalism. In: Zalta EN (ed.) The

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/multiculturalism/ (accessed 23 April 2014).

Sturgis P, Brunton-Smith I, Read S and Allum N (2011)Does ethnic diversity erode trust? Putnam’s‘Hunkering down’ thesis reconsidered. British Journalof Political Science 41(1): 57–82.

Taylor C (1994) The politics of recognition. In:Gutmann A (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining thePolitics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, pp. 25–74.

Thomas P (2011) Youth, Multiculturalism andCommunity Cohesion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Touraine A (1997) Pourrons-nous vivre ensemble? Paris:Fayard.

Triandafyllidou A, Modood T and Meer N (eds) (2012)European Multiculturalism: Cultural, Religious andEthnic Challenges’ Edinburgh: Edinburgh UniversityPress.

Valentine G (2008) Living with difference: Reflectionson geographies of encounter. Progress in Human

Geography 32(3): 323–37.Valentine G and Sadgrove J (2012) Lived difference: A

narrative account of spatiotemporal processes ofsocial differentiation. Environment and Planning A44(9): 2049–63.

Verkuyten M and Brug P (2004) Multiculturalism andgroup status: The role of ethnic identification, groupessentialism and protestant ethic. European Journal ofSocial Psychology 34(6): 647–61.

Verkuyten M and Martinovic B (2006) Understandingmulticultural attitudes: The role of group status,identification, friendships, and justifying ideologies.International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(1):1–18.

Verkuyten M and Thijs J (2002) Multiculturalismamong minority and majority adolescents in theNetherlands. International Journal of InterculturalRelations 26(1): 91–108.

Vertovec S and Wessendorf S (eds) (2010) TheMulticulturalism Backlash. New York: Routledge.

Walsh JP (2014) The marketization of multiculturalism:Neoliberal restructuring and cultural difference inAustralia. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(2): 280–301.

Watson S (2009) Brief Encounters of Unpredictable Kind:Everyday Multiculturalism in Two London StreetMarkets. In: Wise A and Velayutham S (eds) EverydayMulticulturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,pp. 125–39.

Weldon SA (2006). The institutional context oftolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative,multilevel analysis of Western Europe. AmericanJournal of Political Science 50: 331–49.

Werbner P (2005) The translocation of culture :‘Community’ cohesion and the force ofmulticulturalism in history. The Sociological Review53(4): 745–68.

Wieviorka M (ed.) (1996) Une société fragmentée? Lemulticulturalisme en débat. Paris: La Découverte.

Wieviorka M (1998) Is multiculturalism the solution?Ethnic and Racial Studies 21(5): 881–910.

Wieviorka M (2013) The re-enchantment of universalvalues. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(12): 1943–56.

Wilson HF (2011) Passing propinquities in themulticultural city: The everyday encounters of buspassengering. Environment and Planning A 43634–49.

Wise A (2009) Everyday multiculturalism: Transversalcrossing and working class cosmopolitans. In: Wise Aand Velayutham S (eds) Everyday Multiculturalism.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–45.

Wise A and Velayutham S (eds) (2009) EverydayMulticulturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wright M (2011) Policy regimes and normativeconceptions of nationalism in mass public opinion.Comparative Political Studies 44(5): 598–624.

Wright M and Bloemraad I (2012) Is there a trade-offbetween multiculturalism and socio-politicalintegration? Policy regimes and immigrantincorporation in comparative perspective. Perspectiveon Politics 10(1): 77–95.

Wulfhorst C, Rocha C and Morgan G (2014) Intimate

17


multiculturalism: Transnationalism and belongingamongst Capoeiristas in Australia. Journal of Ethnicand Migration Studies 00: 1–19 (accessed 15 August2014).

Yeĝenoĝlu M (2005) Cosmopolitanism and nationalismin a globalized world. Ethnic and Racial Studies28(1): 103–31.

Young IM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Young R (1995) Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Culture,Theory and Race. London: Routledge.

Yuval-Davis N (1999) Ethnicity, gender relations andmulticulturalism. In: Torres RD, Mirón L and Xavier

IJ (eds) Race, Identity and Citizenship: A Reader.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 112–25.

Yuval-Davis N, Anthias F and Kofman E (2005) Secureborders and safe haven and the gendered politics ofbelonging: Beyond social cohesion. Ethnic and RacialStudies 28(3): 513–35.

Zagefka H, Brown R, Broquard M and LeventogluMartin SL (2007) Predictors and consequences ofnegative attitudes toward immigrants in Belgium andTurkey: The role of acculturation preferences andeconomic competition. British Journal of SocialPsychology 46: 153–69.

Enzo Colombo is Professor of Sociology of Intercultural Relations at the University of Milan,Italy. His interests include the social representation of Otherness, new forms of racism, and thetransformation of citizenship. He is the author of several articles and books, including Childrenof Immigrants in a Globalized World: A Generational Perspective (with P Rebughini; 2012).[email: [email protected]]

résumé Cet article présente un aperçu des débats multiculturels dans les sociétés occidentales. Il intro-duit les principales approches théoriques ainsi que les principales critiques. Il identifie également les sujetsactuels et futurs de discussion et d’analyse.

mots-clés différence culturelle ◆ droits culturels ◆ inclusion/exclusion ◆ intégration ◆ reconnaissance

resumen En este artículo se presenta un resumen de los debates multiculturales en las sociedades occi-dentales. Se introducen las principales perspectivas teóricas, así como las principales críticas. Tambiénidentifica los temas actuales y futuras de la discusión y el análisis.

palabras claves derechos culturales ◆ diferencia cultural ◆ inclusión/exclusión integración ◆

reconocimiento

multiculturalisms - sagepub.netmulticulturalism as a normative issue a large part of the...

Documents