Liberalism,Multiculturalism and the Problem of Essentialism1

This article focuses on key themes in the liberal philosophical debate over multiculturalism, as well as the responses of Canadian social and political actors to the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. Since September 11, there has been a renewed popularity of arguments positing a 'clash of civilizations' between Muslim and Christian societies, and a new legitimacy advanced for 'ethnic profiling' in the name of security. The rapidity with which this has happened in Canada is particularly striking because of the country's liberal-democratic and multicultural tradition. The introduction of a national policy of multiculturalism in 1971 provided a new understanding of Canadian citizenship that was more inclusionary of immigrants and ethnic and racial minorities. Multiculturalism has also become a hotly debated ideal among Canadian, American and European political philosophers concerned with addressing the possibilities and limits of liberalism given ethnic diversity, and the limits of ethnic diversity given liberalism. Multiculturalism is typically presented as a 'problem' for liberal politics and ethics. Building on how multiculturalism policy in Canada has provided a more inclusionary discourse around citizenship, a defence of multiculturalism is advanced which rejects the essentialist treatment of 'culture' and 'cultural' groups. It is suggested that the unfolding discussions in Canada since September 11 demonstrate the ongoing tension between cultural essentialism and liberal individual rights. The Canadian experience points to the value of an anti-essentialist multiculturalism in challenging discrimination given that neither liberalism, nor liberal democratic states, are neutral in their allocation of resources and legitimacy among more and less powerful ethnic groups. It is argued that rather than multiculturalism, it is essentialist thinking, imagery and ideas which present the greatest 'problem' to the ethics of liberalism and the politics of liberal democracies like Canada.     

The logic of multiculturalism and Korean democracy

In this article, I attempt to construct a normative framework of Korean multiculturalism in the Confucian public-societal context of Korean democracy by focusing on the political implications of the claim to cultural rights (so-called ‘logic’ of multiculturalism) and cultural pluralism that it is likely to entail for Korean democracy. After examining the logic of multiculturalism that often puts multiculturalism in tension with liberal democracy, I turn to Will Kymlicka's account of immigrant multiculturalism that resolves the potential tension between multiculturalism and liberal democracy in a liberal way. Then, I construct a normative framework of Korean multiculturalism in a way that a decent multicultural society can be established on the same public-cultural ground on which Korean democracy has matured in the past two decades.     

Multiculturalism Reassessed

This article sets out to scrutinize attitudes that people living in the so-called 'multicultural' countries of Australia and Canada have towards important aspects of multiculturalism. The examined attitudes include immigration, integration and assimilation, national pride, and xenophobia. The attitudes in Australia and Canada are compared with the same attitudes that people living in the so-called 'ethnic' countries of Austria and Germany have. Data are drawn from the International Social Survey Program 1995 (ISSP), which is a program for international comparative attitude studies. The results indicate that the support, or lack of support, towards important aspects of multiculturalism is similar in the examined countries regardless of the difference in policy regimes between the two pairs of countries. The latter implies that the political programs of multiculturalism in Australia and Canada risk running into serious problems of getting public support in the future. However, there exists a real political possibility for a move towards a more multicultural model in Austria and Germany.     

Multiculturalism and Free Speech

Anthony Lester tackles the complex and sensitive issues of multiculturalism and free speech. He explores the various meanings given to multiculturalism, integration and assimilation, as well as the relationship between the right to equality and dignity for ethnic and religious minorities and the right to freedom of expression. Placing our multicultural society in its historical context, he considers the treatment of Commonwealth immigrants in the 1960s and 1970s and discusses more recent confrontations involving racial or religious groups which have raised the right to free speech. He argues that our approach to integration and cultural diversity should promote equality and individuality but resist unreasonable demands to respect customs and practices which, for example, harm the rights of women and children, in the name of misguided multiculturalism. We must guard against political correctness that panders to the thin-skinned but remember that the right to offend does not mean a duty to do so.     

Culture vs citizenship? A review and critique of will Kymlicka's multicultural citizenship

The article presents a review and critique of Will Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. I focus primarily on the normative elements and consequences of Kymlicka's theory and present an alternative to his liberal defence of group‐differentiated rights. In marked contrast to Kymlicka, I argue that to truly protect their cultures minority groups must forge closer ties with their respective states. Furthermore, I suggest that multicultural citizenship can only be achieved through a commitment by both majority and minority groups to toleration and respect for deep diversity. To be effective, multiculturalism should be considered to be an ordering principle of the regime.     

Deliberative multiculturalism in New Labour's Britain

The aim of this paper is to examine the principles that New Labour has employed in its citizenship and multicultural policies in Britain, and to clarify theoretical locations as well as philosophical rationales of those principles. By deliberative multiculturalism, I mean a set of policies and discourses of New Labour about citizenship and multicultural issues, which emphasizes rational dialogue and mutual respect with firmly guaranteed political rights especially for minorities. New Labour tries to go beyond liberal and republican citizenship practice through enhancing deliberation, the origin of which goes back to the British tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. It also attempts to achieve a one-nation out of cultural cleavages, shifting its focus from redistribution with social rights to multicultural deliberation with political rights. I organize my discussion with a focus on the difference between two theoretical concepts: the relationship between cultural rights and individual equality, and the relationship between national boundaries and global belonging. In the concluding section, I explain three positive developments of New Labour's approach and also four limitations it has faced.     

Multicultural accommodation and the ideal of non-domination

What normative principles should multicultural states be guided by in responding to minority claims for the accommodation of cultural and religious social practices? This article explores how theories of non-domination can contribute to debates on this question in the multiculturalism literature. It examines Philip Pettit’s, Cecile Laborde’s and Frank Lovett’s republican theories and argues that non-domination-based approaches to multicultural accommodation are more suitable to assess the dynamic of intra- and inter-group relations than the prominent liberal–multiculturalist alternative. However, their advantages are not contingent on the wider theories from which they emerge, but rather related to generalizable features of the non-domination ideal. This suggests that non-domination should also be appealing to non-republicans, who can adopt it minimally as a critical principle to determine illegitimate policies.     

Public opinion polls on Jews in France and Austria

Harris surveys a number of overlapping debates relating to 'difference' and the 'public/private' distinction, including: positions that perceive differences only as labels to secure governmentality; that treat difference as something to be consumed; that accept but confine difference to the private domain; that attempt to reconcile collective difference to the demands of a liberal theory of individual rights; that counter this by suggesting a need to rethink the relationship between state and society to allow for the creation of multicultural public forms; that insist that the option of difference should be enlarged to embrace the fundamental differences of economic inequality; that would see the appeal to cultural differences as only an ideology that masks the contradictions of modern liberal capitalism; and those, like Harris's own, that want to focus on the multifaceted, interactive and relational nature of difference. Identity and culture, he argues, are achieved processes deriving from a specific praxis of interpretation and enforcement located within the field of historically constituted social relations shaped by grids of meanings, access to resources and power. Once we give up the idea of cultures as sealed entities and recognize that even within cultural boundaries communication is essentially about difference and requires translation, then the problematic nature of the constituent elements of 'multiculturalism' - multi-, -cultural-, -ism - renders the whole concept questionable. Undoubtedly, most avowed multiculturalists are committed to some sense of the 'good' or 'better' society, but it will simply not do to overburden the notion of multiculturalism, however radically conceived and well intentioned, with the task of achieving social justice.     

Recent Developments to British Multicultural Theory,Policy and Practice: The Case of British Muslims

Since the early 1970s, there have been highly sophisticated arguments and conceptual discussions put forward in relation to how Western liberal democracies might wish to manage their diverse ethnic minority populations. It is apparent, however, that in the current climate, the important principles of unity and diversity are insufficient to challenge differing forms of ethnic, racial, and religious inequality. This paper argues that because of its underlying assumptions and modus operandi in the post-September 11 climate, British multiculturalism has been ineffective, even supporting some commentators' suggestions of a return to assimilationism. There is a new era in post-September 11 political hegemony, economic determinism and structural and cultural racisms, with European government rhetoric and public policy almost exclusively aimed at Muslims—whether as existing citizens or as part of a process of limiting immigration (which has tended to be from mainly Eastern European, North African, and Middle Eastern sending regions and nations). The example of New Labour and how it has attempted to deal with multiculturalism in Britain is a case in point. The discussion explores the changing concept of multiculturalism with special reference to British Muslims and debates that emerge in relation to identity, nation and civil society. It is argued that the experience and treatment of British Muslims is important to explore and appreciate in the current climate as it provides a test case for the future of (a) British multiculturalism and (b) British Muslims in society per se.     

Justifying grounds for multicultural policies in Korea: universal human rights versus benefits of diversity

Multicultural policies often deviate from the principle of equal opportunity since it assumes exclusive policy target groups with extra budget and appropriate organization. If this is so, by what rationale can multicultural policies be justified? Why should we accept such unequal treatment as a procedural method to achieve a more equal society as the final goal? This paper examines justifying logic for multicultural policies that inevitably have an arbitrary aspect of state intervention. This paper first differentiates two kinds of logic, namely universal human rights and the benefits of diversity, which provide supporting rationale for the implementation of multicultural policies. We can witness from the US history that the benefits of diversity have increasingly become the main logic justifying affirmative action instead of liberal discussions on social justice and universal human rights of the 1960s. Korea also shows such a shift towards a utilitarian justification which has focused heavily on the benefits of diversity. However, the utilitarian rationalization for multicultural transition can be easily withdrawn when the benefits of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity disappear, suddenly leading to unexpected discriminatory situations. In this context, this paper argues that discussion of normative justification is required, and such discussions need to be internalized among the citizens of a political community.     

Nordic vs. anti-Nordic: the Galton Society and the American Anthropological Association

Most homegrown commentators on race and multiculturalism in Britain find it very difficult to believe that multi-ethnic Britain has anything much it can learn from continental Europe. Arguing against this view, Favell diagnoses the reasons why British academics tend to fall back on 'exceptionalist' arguments. It is wrong to characterize the achievements and peculiarities of British multicultural race relations in terms that disconnect it from similar developments in other West European countries. Favell goes on to discuss the wide-ranging impact of black British cultural studies on research in Britain, exploring the limitations in particular of the paradigm laid down by the influential work of Stuart Hall. Offering an alternative comparative approach to understanding race relations and immigration in Britain, he sets out the distinctive insights to be found when Britain is looked at in terms of general international theories of citizenship and migration. Policymakers and policy academics in Britain, however, continue to work within a framework of ideas and concepts that is becoming increasingly less responsive to the challenge of new migrations-such as asylum-seekers and new economic migrants - which have come to dominate the European scene in the last decade.     

Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Limits to Multiculturalism

The case of the opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada is an example of the limits of what will and will not be tolerated in the name of multiculturalism. This case offers an interesting perspective on the topic of multiculturalism, because it deals with a conflict between those seeking to expand human rights and those seeking to prevent such expansion because of their adherence to a particular set of cultural and religious beliefs. Despite Canada’s commitment to recognizing and encouraging diversity within its population, the demands of the opponents of same-sex marriage were not accommodated. Heeding the opponents of same-sex marriage would have amounted to violating the deeper commitment to individual rights and human rights as interpreted by the Charter. Multiculturalism in Canada is a concept that is situated within an underlying adherence to these core values.

Reconciling cultural diversity with a democratic community: Mestizaje as opposed to the usual suspects

A fascinating development within the liberal‐communitarian debate is how to deal with cultural diversity in increasingly heterogeneous democracies. Particularly noteworthy are Will Kymlicka's recasting of liberalism to deal with cultural minorities, especially the indigenous peoples of Canada and Charles Taylor's and Michael Walzer's articulation of a ‘deep diversity’ with regard to the federal relationship of Quebec to Canada as a whole. Both approaches, though, insufficiently address how combinations of cultures have been underway in the Americas for the past 500 years. Instead, I contend that mestizaje, the combination of cultures which has ensued in Mexico and the United States Southwest, articulates a ‘unity in diversity’ in which cultures transform each other without culminating in assimilation. To bolster my exegesis of mestizaje from the works of the Virgil Elizondo and Gloria Anzaldua, I accent how Jeremy Waldron's cosmopolitanism, Iris Marion Young's relational group theory, and Homi Bhabha's hybridity similarly illustrate how proposals such as Kymlicka's or Taylor/Walzer's insufficiently incorporate how integral heterogeneity is to cultural identity. In view of how ‘the border’ between the United States and Mexico exemplifies the growing intersection of diverse cultures from the developed and developing world, mestizaje offers that the intersection of multiple cultures in collaborative—not hegemonic—relations is intrinsic to realizing democratic citizenship.     

“Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?” Immigration,Multiculturalism and the Disavowal of Racism in the Run-up to the 2005 British General Election

The overt expression of racist discourse in the public realm is today—even in the case of far-right organizations like the British National Party—avoided at all costs. Yet approaches by competing political parties to the “populist” issue of asylum/immigration in the months preceding the 2005 General Election were clearly informed by negative ideas of racial difference.

This article sets out to describe the conceptual logic and rhetorical structures of political discourses of cultural pluralism underwritten by the spectre of racism. This “official multiculturalism” is in large part shared by mainstream political parties and national news media, and is predicated on the self-conscious disavowal of racism and racist intent, while simultaneously serving to attack or problematize the existence or behaviour of certain racialized groups, both within and without the nation.

I argue that such interventions increasingly circulate around definitions of legitimate cultural citizenship; that is, on ideas of civil society predicated on normative models of belonging to multicultural Britain. I will consider how the electoral campaigns of both Labour and Conservative parties were carefully constructed with a view to their reporting in the news media, and the extent to which such discourses of (multi)cultural citizenship publicly disavow—yet remain strongly marked by—exclusionary concepts of racialized difference.     

Turning on the Citizen: Modern Citizenship and its Cultural Hazards

How is the citizen 'turned on'? That is, how does one 'switch' from being a private person to being a citizen? This article investigates how several prominent models of politics and citizenship account for this switch. In particular, the role of (cultural) identity in performing the 'switch' is highlighted. In the 'standard' liberal model, the switch from private to public is considered an unproblematic 'mind switch'. In the communitarian model, on the contrary, it is considered impossible: the good citizen must be a good person. In the republican model, identity 'restrictions' can be overcome by actively participating in the context of a culture of democratic deliberation. In the liberal multicultural model, cultural identity counts explicitly, although as a handicap, to be overcome by the support of cultural rights. In the model of identity politics, finally, identity counts positively, as an asset. Although identity thus empowers 'switching', its 'transformative' dimension has unpredictable and often unsettling effects, due to unacknowledged elements in the demand for recognition of identity in politics. Throughout the article, the vicissitudes of 'switching' are illuminated by an analysis of the Clinton-Lewinsky case, showing how president Clinton's 'sexualized identity' affected his ability to switch from private to public affairs--for better or for worse.     

Divided Loyalties,Empowered Citizenship? Muslims in Britain

Fear of Muslims, Islamophobia, is embedded in stereotypical assumptions and pronouncements regarding selected customs and, above all, the inherently fanatical, violent and irrational tendencies of Muslim leaders and their followers. The further point of such discourses is the claim that these alien qualities and attributes have come to be implanted in the Western body itself, no longer simply confined to its 'bloody boundaries', to cite Huntington, but extending within and across them. A substantial Muslim diasporic presence has emerged in Europe and the West, and even some Western liberals, who pride themselves on their enlightened tolerance, appear concerned about the capacity of this culturally alien presence, as they see it, to integrate'. Such doubts surfaced especially during the Rushdie affair and the Gulf war, both of which seemed to expose the chasm between so-called Western 'values' and Islamic ones. In denying the validity of this antagonistic vision according to which Muslim minorities are intrinsically antithetical to Western democractic practices, the aim of the present paper is twofold: first, to highlight the rise of an alternative contemporary debate about the rights and obligations of Muslims as minorities in the West which is currently animating Muslim and Western scholars, clerics and activists; and second, to argue that Muslim diasporic transnational mobilisation, including even the conflicts surrounding the Rushdie affair and the Gulf war, have been key moments in the development of a Muslim British civic consciousness and capacity for active citizenship. Far from revealing ambiguous loyalties or unbridgeable cultural chasms, British Muslim transnational loyalties have challenged the national polity, I argue, to explore new forms of multiculturalism and to work for new global human rights causes. At the same time such mobilisations have been part of the learning process of becoming a politically effective diaspora. In the long run, then, the Muslim diasporic presence in Britain is a potentially enriching one, and particularly so as the state moves to becoming a post-national, multicultural polity.     

Islamists in the “Rainbow” Coalition

In the 1980s, Britain’s Labour Party promoted a system of race-relations that envisioned Britain as a collection of discrete cultures with equal status. This multicultural model for organizing society conflicted with traditional British notions of a unified national culture, with an assimilationist model of immigrant incorporation. Today, the Labour Party’s relationship with Islamists is sharply dividing Labour’s “rainbow” constituency. Whereas the horrific events of 9/11 and 7/7 have led many Labour leaders to replace its defense of multiculturalism with Tory-sounding calls for immigrant assimilation, other Labour leaders are working harder than ever to accommodate their Muslim constituents.

Exemplary Lives and the Normative Theory of Culture

This article defends an essentialist account of culture against the recent turn toward nonessentialism in contemporary liberal multiculturalism. It does so by drawing on Friedrich Nietzsche's early period and argues that Nietzsche provides an alternative to the dominant tradition of Volk conceptions of culture that derive from J. G. Herder. Nietzsche's alternative—what I call the “Exemplar Account” of culture—defines culture in terms of the patterns of human excellence that constitute it. This alternative overcomes standard concerns about essentialism by embracing the nonessentialist insight into the fluidity and variability of any culture's beliefs, values, and practices, yet holds that exemplary lives transcend the flux of culture and individuate one culture from another. I suggest in conclusion a practical benefit of this conception of culture for contemporary multiculturalism—namely, it fares better than other conceptions in fostering integration among diverse cultures, a pressing worry facing the current project of multiculturalism.     

How Safe Do Majority Group Members,Ethnic Minorities,and Muslims Feel in Multicultural European Societies?

London elected a Muslim mayor in 2016, less than a year after Germany took the lead in welcoming Syrian refugees. What accounts, then, for political leaders’ public assertions of the death of multiculturalism and the resurgence of far-right parties? We examine the possibility that some areas of multicultural policy foster a sense of discrimination on the part of majority populations and reduce their sense of safety, putting pressure on political leaders for assurances and providing the impetus for populist political party agendas, even to the point of Brexit. Data from the Banting/Kymlicka Multiculturalism Policy Index project and from the European Social Survey allow us to explore the impact of specific areas of multicultural policy on those who identify as majority group members, ethnic minorities, and Muslims in fourteen European states. We provide a quantitative multivariate analysis of the influence of key areas of state-level multicultural policy on individuals’ sense of being in a group that is discriminated against, as well as their feelings of safety, satisfaction with life, and satisfaction with the national government. Background factors, including respondents’ education, are controlled. For each of the three groups of respondents, the article offers conclusions as to which areas of multicultural policy seem to contribute to the most adverse reactions. Our findings help to explain the backlash against multiculturalism and the shift in focus in European states toward “mainstreaming” integration programs. They also provide a contextual background for understanding the increasing sway of rightist party demands and cautions for the development of programs to counter violent extremism.     

Through a Glass Darkly: Afrocentrism,War, and World Politics

While the two dominant Eurocentric paradigms of world politics, realism and idealism, place greater emphasis on power and regime type, respectively, in their analyses of war, a recently promulgated Afrocentric paradigm of world politics suggests that cultural characteristics of states are significantly associated with the likelihood of interstate war. Drawing on these competing perspectives, I conduct a data analysis of the relationship between cultural homogeneity and interstate conflict in order to determine the extent to which Afrocentric theses on international conflict are borne out empirically. I find that cultural factors are significant correlates of interstate war as Afrocentrists suggest, although realist and idealist factors are more strongly associated with the likelihood of interstate war. In addition, the findings suggest that multiculturalism—especially ethnic diversity—is a more auspicious path for interstate peace.