Debates on Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Multiculturalism is a social doctrine that distinguishes itself as a positive alternative for policies of assimilation, connoting a politics of recognition of the citizenship rights and cultural identities of ethnic minority groups and an affirmation of the value of cultural diversity. The extent of culture maintenance by ethnic minority groups and their adaptation to majority group culture are two issues central to everyday thinking about multiculturalism. Much of the recent debate about multiculturalism and minority rights in western political theory has conceptualized the issues in terms of two alternatives -states could either adopt procedural liberalism and equal rights or a politics of difference. In every society the state plays a vital role in fostering a sense of justice and common belonging.

2020

Classical liberalism with its genesis from Enlightenment took a negative approach to cultural diversity and minority rights. It does not recognize identities based on ethnicity, gender, cultural, nationality. Modern liberalism’s commitment to cultural diversity and minority rights emerged out of criticisms from within and outside. Modern liberalism recognizes and accommodates cultural diversity through institutional and policy mechanisms. However, modern liberal states are not free from tensions and conflicts. The competitive demand for accommodation and recognition by various communities and groups lead to instability in contemporary liberal democracies.

Ethnicities

The article introduces a special issue on “Rethinking Liberal Multiculturalism: Foundations, Practices and Methodologies.” The contributions presented in this special issue were discussed during the conference « Multicultural Citizenship 25 Years Later », held in Paris in November 2021. Their aim is to take stock of the legacy of Kymlicka’s contribution and to highlight new developments in theories of liberal multiculturalism and minority rights. The contributions do not purport to challenge the legitimacy of theories of multiculturalism and minority rights, they rather aim at deepening our understanding of the foundations of liberal multiculturalism and of its practical implementation, sensitive to social scientific dynamics of diverse societies. Without abandoning the general idea that cultural minorities should be granted special minority rights, the essays presented raise new questions about three dimensions central to liberal multiculturalism: its normative foundations, its practical categories of minorities or groups, and its fact-sensitive methodology. Taken together they shed light on the renewed variety of theories of liberal multiculturalism highlighting their complexity and internal disagreements. To introduce these articles, the article first draws a brief historical overview of the debates on multiculturalism since the 1990s (section 1). It then highlights the distinctive aspects of Kymlicka’s contribution (section 2) and identifies recent research trends (section 3). Doing so, it explains how the articles gathered here both expand on those distinctive aspects and explore those new research avenues. The section 4 summarizes the contributions.

In spite of its engagement with application, and in spite of its concern for social justice, sociolinguistics, according to some, has had negligible impact beyond academic circles. (Bargiela-Chaippini, 2004) The theoretical agnosticism of sociolinguistics and the relatively unengaged attitude of current sociolinguistics towards social theory (Coupland,2001), no doubt, contributed to this impasse. The present paper, as a tribute to the responsible teachings of Rama Kant Agnihotri, redresses this allegation to some extent by situating language rights movements and minority rights in general within the broader spectrum of a liberal, plural democracy framework. In the aftermath of recent events that urged political scientists to promptly designate a pre- and a post- period of these events, the spirit of liberal democracy has been under threat in the form of exclusionary gestures towards integrating multicultural policies concerning immigration and ethnicity in general. The notion of an undifferentiated citizenry in the public sphere has been compromised by western societies and governments. This is further compounded by the philosophical retreat from such policies as amounting to a denial of individual freedom and equality. This, in short, is the politics of multiculturalism; however, it is also becoming clearer that there cannot be a political car of multiculturalism without its philosophical engine. Throughout the following discussion, it becomes evident though, that the thread that runs through – or the oil that runs the car -- the politics and philosophy of multiculturalism is the liberalist dilemma of coping with the opposing demands of liberty and equality.

multiculturalism and liberal values, 2015

I always had an impression that a single sentence uttered by Dr. Martin Luther King can be used as the main principle for describing the liberal democracy: ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.’ The emphasis in his quote is clearly on two important points: multiculturalism (colour of their skin) and liberal values (content of their character). As many states have paraded multiculturalism as their first headline in establishing the trust of the electorate by announcing that the equality of different races, religions and cultures is their priority, I will argue that not enough has been done to bring them together in the homogenous and cohesive community. I will argue that calling those different racial, religious and cultural groups minorities is a wrong approach. The concept minority automatically suggests that there is a majority, as those two opposites co-substantiate one another. Although there can be a ‘healthy balance’ or unity between majority and minority (in reality or thought), when political emphasis is one the majority, the unity can be easily broken (it even further empowers the meaning of concept minority by evoking the fact that minority is always outnumbered and outvoted). The term minority can arouse feelings of weakness, marginalisation and humiliation. Instead I will call these different groups comprehensive groups. I will argue that achieving only co-existence of different comprehensive groups in the society is not enough to bring them under the ambarella of unity and cohesion. Instead I will argue that integration of different comprehensive groups represents more important task for the societal cohesion. Co-existence does not mean integration or unity; it is often culpable for misunderstanding, blame and animosity among comprehensive groups. And for that reason co-existence has to be protected but very stringent laws which keep comprehensive groups away from each other, not closer. It is the fear from the law that makes co-existence sustainable, not understanding and friendship of different groups that is the only way that can lead to complete integration. By integration I discern mutual understanding of different comprehensive groups that will help them to become closer to each other under the cover of liberal democratic society which guaranties their freedom and prosperity. Integration does not mean abandoning the traditions and cultural identity of comprehensive groups, but in accepting differences of others enriching their own and bonding together into the society that belongs to all equally. Regarding the second important point in Dr. King’s quote, liberal values as the content of one’s character, more is to be said. In this dissertation I will argue that multiculturalism is not only sustainable in a liberal society but that a society based on liberal values is the only place where multiculturalism can fully prosper, meaning that all cultural groups are free and equal and have the same rights and duties, without one dominating another. The fundamental values, on which liberal societies are built, such as individual freedom, equality and autonomy, have allowed equal treatment for all individuals as well as comprehensive groups whose doctrines include the full system of values according to which people should live their lives. Comprehensive groups may be religious, moral or philosophical and can also have opposing views on a good life. Some communitarian political philosophers, as well as some liberals, argue that liberal society cannot accommodate equal treatment for all individuals and comprehensive groups and that in fact, liberal society restricts their freedom. This is why some have insisted on different factors that matter more to social unity such as nationalism, patriotism, special rights for some groups etc. But, to offer freedom and equal rights to all individuals, liberal society cannot allow unrestricted, absolute freedom to all comprehensive groups, since that will mean compromising the same values on which it is built. No other political type of society has ever offered as much equality and prosperity to all different cultural groups within it, as liberal society does. Throughout history, there have been examples of multicultural states where it was a regular practice that a single ‘official’ or preferred culture or religion dominated all the others. It was a common practice of different empires, monarchies, republics, dictatorial and communist regimes. One culture and way of life or one religion has always been ‘official’, and therefore dominant whilst others have been suppressed, even outlawed, and have witnessed their members being expelled or prosecuted. In non-liberal societies, historically and even in this day and age, non-dominant cultural groups could have only existed under the conditions of oppression and marginalisation. In the following three chapters, I will develop the argument by starting with liberal values as the pillars of liberal society. Thanks to liberal values such as freedom and equality, and especially autonomy, different cultural groups can be fully open to all individuals who will voluntarily decide which community or association they will join and follow their teachings or way of life. Explaining the development of liberal values through political philosophy in the first chapter, I will discuss the liberal theories of John Locke (often credited as the founder of liberalism), Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek. In the second chapter, I will introduce communitarian views and their criticisms of some liberal values. As communitarians insist on the community’s value over the individuals, their criticisms are directed mainly towards the individual autonomy. I will then discuss the issue of special rights demanded for different comprehensive groups (Iris Marion Young and Bhikhu Parekh), the criticism of Rawls’ theory of person (Michael Sandel), the defence of a nation (Roger Scruton), nationalism (David Miller) and patriotism (Alasdair MacIntyre) as opposites of the fundamentals of liberal society. In the third chapter I will present the defence of liberalism and prove that multiculturalism can only fully prosper in a liberal society. As Rawls suggested in his early work, what we aim for ourselves should be always allowed to everyone else. This means that that political freedom, free choice of religion and other comprehensive doctrines should be allowed to all as essential attributes of free and equal individuals. What is often happening is that cultural groups demand special rights in order to increase their powers over their members, therefore avoiding the liberal laws being implemented over the group regarding specific issues. I will also question the nature and validity of special rights and their purpose and necessity in a liberal society. I will support my thesis with John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Brian Barry and Amy Guttmann’s views. The world as a community of societies is definitely going in the direction foreseen by liberal philosophers rather than their critics. Purely ethnic societies don’t exist anymore in the developed world. Multiculturalism was a simply unavoidable consequence of the industrial revolution, expansion of the world trade and global economics. Free transport of goods, people and ideas is not wishful thinking anymore, but rather the reality of a modern world. Progress has no national feelings, patriotic bondage or religious dominance. The world in which humanity expresses its potentials has changed the landscape of pragmatic and romantic political theorists. Empires have collapsed, dictators have failed, and democracy has created new political conditions in which people as individuals have found their place and justified the current national and ever-increasing global politics. Politics that are not justified by the majority of citizens and cultural groups will undoubtedly fail. In order to be justified they have to be liberal. They have to guarantee freedom and equality to all, regardless of their religious, philosophical, moral or other doctrines.

As a result of international migration, multiculturalism has become the dominant theory in the last 20-30 years in some countries of Western civilization. It was generally accepted that due to the practice of multiculturalism the different cultures can live peacefully side by side. The theory has become widely spread in the 1970s, but nowadays it is increasingly criticized; many question its ability to solve cultural problems. In this short paper I attempt to unfold the precise meaning of the term due to a lot of uncertainty in this area. The question is especially relevant as there is a lot of discussion about the failure of multiculturalism and as it is blamed for being responsible for causing social conflicts. Being examined as a political theory, we see that the concept can be interpreted in different ways and its boundaries are often blurred when trying to distinguish it from globalism or liberalism. In everyday language, multiculturalism is often regarded as identical to efforts to promote the integration of immigrants as well. The most widely accepted definition is generally negative: it determines what is not multiculturalism, or what can be contrasted with it. In fact, multiculturalism is a political philosophy and a social doctrine, which takes into account diversity and cultural differences, and defines itself as an alternative to assimilation. It is important to clarify that the model can only be applied in states where there are many strong communities that are able to survive and even seek it. However, it is not applicable if there are many immigrants from different cultures, but only a few from each culture or they do not wish to keep their identity (Joseph Raz).

Przegląd Europejski, 2022

The main aim of this article is to examine multiculturalism as a specific policy of multi-ethnic states, and its essence and specificity. Multiculturalism can be considered as a policy aimed at preserving and developing cultural diversity in a particular state, as well as a theory or ideology justifying such policy. In the essence of multiculturalism lies the idea of the peaceful coexistence of different groups-ethnic, racial, religious, cultural, and other-within one state. The present study addresses the following research question: how multiculturalism obligations have been considered by state policy? In the course of the research, the answer to this question was achieved by analysing what multiculturalism is, and then-examining several theoretical approaches to this policy. As a result, the author concluded that multiculturalism can be a component of state policy only in states where the government actively promotes and protects the rights and interests of various cultural groups.

This paper is critically engaged in the elaboration of the ideology of multiculturalism in the European context, which is currently constrained by the securitisation and stigmatisation of migration and Islam. In western nation-states migration has recently been framed as a source of fear and instability in a way that constructs ‘communities of fear’. This article claims that both securitisation and Islamophobia have recently been employed by the neo-liberal states as a form of governmentality in order to control the masses in ethno-culturally and religiously diverse societies at the expense of deepening the already existing cleavages between majority societies and minorities with Muslim background. The article will also discuss the other side of the coin by referring to the revitalisation of the rhetoric of tolerance and multiculturalism by the Justice and Development Party rule in Turkey, the origins of which date back to Ottoman times.

Perspectives on …, 2008

2012

A historical imperative Although multiculturalism has become a familiar concept in newspaper debates, political discussions, sociology, political science and other public and academic discourses, the term multiculturalism is often confusing and imprecise. It is frequently used to describe a condition, which already exists in Western Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, because of the actual presence of various cultural and religious groups and immigrants in these countries. Yet, there is little elaboration of how these diverse cultures coexist in reality. The concept of multiculturalism also has another meaning, which points toward a development in the not-too-distant future whose challenges we must be prepared to meet.