Multiculturalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is  disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Multiculturalism is  an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or  at least allow and  include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status. Multiculturalism contrasts with the monoculturalism which was historically the norm in the nation-state. (Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity, 'monocultural' can be a descriptive term for pre-existing homogeneity). The term multiculturalism is  almost always applied to distinct cultures of immigrant groups in developed countries, not to the presence of indigenous peoples.

Multiculturalism began as an  official policy in English-speaking countries, starting in Canada in 1971.^{[citation needed]} it  was quickly adopted by most member-states in the European Union, as official policy, and  as a social consensus among the elite.^{[citation needed]} In recent years, several European states, notably the Netherlands and  Denmark, right-of-centre governments have  reversed the national policy consensus, and  returned to an  official monoculturalism.^{[citation needed]} A similar reversal is  the subject of debate in the United Kingdom and  Germany, among others.

Multiculturalism has its supporters and  critics alike. Its supporters often see it  as a self-evident entitlement of cultural groups, as a form of civil rights grounded in equality of cultures. They often assume it  will lead to interculturalism - beneficial cultural exchanges, where cultures learn about each other's literature, art and  philosophy (high culture), and  influence each other's music, fashion and  cuisine. Its opponents often see it  as something which has been imposed on them without their consent. They fear it  will lead to cultural ghettos, undermining national unity. In Europe especially, opponents see multiculturalism as a direct assault on the national identity, and  on the nation itself, and  sometimes as a conspiracy to Islamise Europe.

Contents 1 Before multiculturalism 1.1 Europe: the monocultural nation-state 1.2 The Melting Pot (USA) 1.3 Australia: ethnic selection 2 Adoption as policy 2.1 Origins in Canada 2.2 Australia 2.3 Sweden 2.4 United States 2.5 United Kingdom 3 Typical multicultural policies 4 Non-western policies 4.1 Malaysia 5 Developing opposition to multiculturalism 5.1 Canada 5.2 Opposition in Australia 6 Islam, Europe and  multiculturalism 7 Reaction against multiculturalism in Europe 7.1 The Netherlands 7.1.1 Intellectual critique 7.1.2 Political reaction 7.2 Reaction in the United Kingdom 7.3 Reactions in Germany 7.4 Reactions in France 8 Post-multiculturalism in Europe 8.1 Polarisation 9 References 10 See also 11 External links

[edit] Before multiculturalism

It may be an  anachronism to speak of multiculturalism in historical societies which did not use the term, especially before modernity. The degree of cultural homogeneity in past societies also depends on their size: smaller groups are  more likely to show cultural unity. However, it  is clear that in the past large states, especially empires, lacked the cultural unity of modern nation-states, and  lacked the means to create it.

[edit] Europe: the monocultural nation-state

Especially in the 19th century, the ideology of nationalism transformed the way Europeans thought about the state. Existing states were broken up and  new ones created: in the associated wars, millions of people died. The new nation-states were founded on the principle that each nation is  entitled to its own sovereign state, to reflect, facilitate, and  protect its own unique culture and  history. Unity, under this ideology, is  seen as an  essential feature of the nation and  the nation-state - unity of descent, unity of culture, unity of language, and  often unity of religion. The nation-state implies a culturally homogeneous society, although some national movements recognised regional differences. None of them, however, accepted "foreign" elements in culture and  society. The older multilingual and  multi-ethnic empires, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and  the Ottoman Empire were derided as oppressive, and  most Europeans no longer accept that such a state can be legitimate. British political thought was slower in accepting the implications of the concept of the nation-state.

Where the cultural unity was insufficient, it  was encouraged (and enforced) by the state. The 19th-century nation-states developed an  array of policies: the most important was compulsory primary education in the national language. The language itself was often standardised by a linguistic academy, and  regional languages were ignored or  suppressed. Some nation-states pursued violent and  oppressive policies of cultural assimilation, not to mention ethnic cleansing.

The end result of this process, combined with the persecutions, mass murders, and  expulsions in two World Wars, was that Europe in the 1950's was a continent of relatively homogeneous nation-states. The economic boom of the 1950s created a demand for labour migration, beginning a process which would alter those societies. The full impact was not realized for decades, partly because of the fiction of the Gastarbeiter - the immigrants were assumed to be temporary migrants, who would return to their home country. The introduction of multiculturalism in western Europe coincided with the recognition that the nation-state had acquired new, permanent, minorities.

[edit] The Melting Pot (USA)

In the United States, continuous mass immigration had been a feature of economy and  society since the first half of the 19th century. There was no fiction that the immigrants would return: immigration was seen as a permanent choice for a new country. The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of the national mythos, along with the expansion westwards. The central metaphor is  the idea of the Melting Pot - where all the immigrant cultures are  mixed and  amalgamated without state intervention. The Melting Pot implied that each individual immigrant, and  each group of immigrants, assimilated into American society at their own pace, improving their income and  social status on the way. it  reflected and  influenced official policy: although language courses were offered, they were rarely compulsory. As a result, several immigrant communities maintained a non-English language for generations. The nature of American national identity, with its emphasis on symbolic patriotism, allegiance, national values and  a national mythos, facilitated the assimilation of immigrants. The Melting Pot attitude did not require a detailed knowledge of American history, acquisition of a complex cultural heritage, or  accent-free English. it  allowed interest in the culture of the country of origin, and  family ties with that country. In practice, the original culture disappeared within two generations. an  Americanized (and often stereotypical) version of the original nation's cuisine, and  its holidays, survived.

The Melting Pot concept has been criticized, as an  idealized version of the assimilation process. One common criticism is  that it  apparently did not apply to English-speaking, US-born black people, who stayed at the bottom of the social ladder from the American Civil War on. Another criticism is  that the Melting Pot model described the assimilation of immigrants from Europe, rather than the assimilation of any immigrant. The growth in the use of the Spanish language - the model implies it  would decline - has led to calls for state-enforced language policy similar to those in Europe. more  recently, some have  argued that "the Melting Pot" leads to an  erosion of groups individual heritage and  have argued that the USA is  better described as "a tossed salad", with each group intermingling with all, but maintaining their separate identity.

Note that the Melting Pot tradition co-exists with a belief in national unity, dating from the American founding fathers:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and  customs... This country and  this people seem to have  been made for each other, and  it appears as if it  was the design of Providence, that an  inheritance so proper and  convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and  alien sovereignties." (John Jay, First American Supreme Court Chief Justice).

[edit] Australia: ethnic selection

Although its inhabitants are  mainly immigrant-descended, Australia also has a long tradition of opposition to immigration (see nativism). The earliest immigrants were from the United Kingdom, after 1800 including Ireland, and  some subsequent immigrants seemed more  "foreign". Proposals to limit immigration by ethnic group were intended to pre-select the immigrant population. The White Australia policy, which in various forms lasted 150 years, was the most comprehensive policy of this type in the world. Such policies limit the cultural diversity of the immigrant population, and  in theory facilitate the cultural assimilation of the immigrants, since they would come from related cultures. They can co-exist either with a Melting Pot strategy, or  an official assimilation policy.

[edit] Adoption as policy

Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy, in several nations from the 1970s onward, for reasons that varied from country to country.

[edit] Origins in Canada

In Canada, multiculturalism was adopted in 1971, following the  and  Biculturalism">Royal Commission on Bilingualism and  Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and  bicultural society and  adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions.

Progressive Conservative Party leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an  attack on his vision of "unhyphenated Canadianism. it  did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism. While many Canadians disliked the new policies of biculturalism and  official bilingualism, the strongest opposition came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population was tiny compared to other cultural minorities. To accommodate them, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and  biculturalism" to "bilingualism and  multiculturalism."

The Liberal Party government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the "Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework" in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precursor of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which received Royal Assent on 21 July 1988. Symbolically, this legislation affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation, the first country in the world to explicitly ratify it  in law. On a more  practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and  the construction of ethnic-oriented community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations rather than Trudeau's vision of a Just Society. After its election in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse these policies, although they had earlier been criticised by Tories as inconsistent with "unhyphenated Canadianism."

Far from pleading multiculturalism's neutrality in matters of national unity, successive Canadian governments have  argued that the policy promotes the national interest by breaking down social and  cultural barriers. Rather than weakening the national character, or  presenting a slippery slope whereby all groups may appeal for separate (read special) treatment based on every imaginable difference, the policy is  viewed as strengthening national identity by binding citizens to a single moral community. The policy was added to Canada's 1982 constitution, in  and  Freedoms">section 27 of the  and  Freedoms">Canadian Charter of Rights and  Freedoms.

Diane Ravitch describes both the melting pot and  Canada's cultural mosaic as being multicultural and  distinguishes them as pluralistic and  particularist multiculturalism. Pluralistic multiculturalism views each culture or  subculture in a society as contributing unique and  valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture. Particularist multiculturalism is  more concerned with preserving the distinctions between cultures.

[edit] Australia

The other country to have  most fully adopted Canadian-style multiculturalism is  Australia, with many similar policies, for example the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service. While Paul Keating's Labor Government was an  advocate of multiculturalism in the early 1990s, the current Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard himself is  a critic of multiculturalism, preferring instead a "shared national identity". Newspaper columists such as Andrew Bolt have  called for a National policy of Assimilation.

[edit] Sweden

Officially undertook a multiculturalist policy in 1975.

[edit] United States

In the United States multiculturalism is  not an  official policy at the federal level. At the state level, it  is sometimes associated with English-Spanish bilingualism. However, the government, in recent years, has moved to support many multiculturalist policies. In some ways, the United States has gone even further than Canada and  Australia with such policies. For instance, California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages, and  voting districts are  shaped to facilitate proportional minority representation in government.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] United Kingdom

Under the Conservatives (1979-1997), multicultural rhetoric and  policies were confined to left-leaning councils. Since the election of the Labour government in 1997, multiculturalism has influenced government policies and  statements. Precursors of present policy include the Race Relations Act, and  the British Nationality Act of 1948.

[edit] Typical multicultural policies

Government multicultural policies can include:

• recognition of multiple citizenship (the multiple citizenship itself usually results from the nationality laws of another country)
• government support for newspapers, television, and  radio in minority languages
• support for minority festivals, holidays, and  celebrations
• acceptance of traditional and  religious dress in schools, the military, and  society in general
• support for music and  arts from minority cultures
• programs to encourage minority representation in politics, education, and  the work force

While multiculturalist policies are  sometimes seen as opposing cultural assimilation, the policies of countries such as Canada do support structural assimilation. Immigrant groups are  encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority languages, and  enter the labour force.

[edit] Non-western policies

Multiculturalism, as generally understood, refers to ideology and  policy in western nation-states, which previously had an  uncontested national identity. Many nation-states in Africa, Asia, and  Latin America are  culturally diverse, and  are 'multi-cultural' in a descriptive sense. In some, communalism is  a major political issue. The policies adopted by these states often have  parallels with multicultural-ist policies in the Western world, but the historical background is  different, and  the goal may be a monocultural or  mono-ethnic nation-building - for instance in the Malaysian governments attempt to create a 'Malaysian race' by 2020. ^[1]

[edit] Malaysia

The Malay Peninsula has a long history of international trade contacts, influencing its ethnic and  religious composition. Predominantly Malays before the 18th century, the ethnic composition changed dramatically when the British introduced new industries, and  imported Chinese and  Indian labour. Several regions in the then British Malaya such as Penang, Malacca and  Singapore became Chinese dominated. Co-existence between the three ethnicities (and other minor groups) was largely peaceful, despite the fact the immigration affected the demographic and  cultural position of the Malays.

Preceding independence of the Federation of Malaya, a social contract was negotiated as the basis of a new society. The contract as reflected in the 1957 Malayan Constitution and  the 1963 Malaysian Constitution states that the immigrant groups are  granted citizenship, and  Malays' special rights are  guaranteed. This is  often referred to the Bumiputra policy.

The formation of Malaysia itself was burdened with the 'mathematics of race'. The then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman would only accept Singapore as a member of the federation if Sarawak and  North Borneo were admitted too. The Prime Minister's rationale was that the inclusion of Singapore into a new federation would make the Chinese the new majority power, at the expense of the Malays. Inclusion of the Borneo states, on the other hand, would maintain a Malay majority.

Ethnic tensions followed the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Singapore, under the leadership of People's Action Party, and  the federal government led by a coalition chaired by the United Malays National Organisation, had frequent disputes about the social contract. Tension between Malays and  Chinese contributed to the 1964 Race Riots in Singapore. This riot in turn partly contributed to the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia. At the same time, Malaysia was experiencing a communist insurgency known as the Malayan Emergency. The conflict could be seen as between the Chinese-dominated Communist Party of Malaya and  the British-backed Malay-dominated government.^[2]

The worst race riot — the May 13 Incident — occurred in 1969, again  between Chinese and  Malays. This led to the introduction of the New Economic Policy which aimed to reduce economic disparities between the ethnic groups. it  also introduced policies such as the Rukunegara to encourage unity among all ethnic groups in Malaysia, and  promoted syncretic festivals such as DeepaRaya and  Kongsi Raya. In education, the national education policies included vernacular education. Malaysia is  the only country outside of China that has a Chinese education system. ^[3]

These pluralist policies have  come under pressure from orthodox Muslims and  Islamist parties, who oppose secular and  non-Islamic religious influences. The issue is  related to the controversial status of religious freedom in Malaysia.

[edit] Developing opposition to multiculturalism

In the United States especially, multiculturalism became associated with political correctness and  with the rise of ethnic identity politics. In the 1980's and  1990's many criticisms were expressed, from both the left and  right, although predominantly from the right wing. Criticisms come from a wide variety of perspectives, but predominantly from the perspective of liberal individualism, from American conservatives concerned about values, and  from a national unity perspective.

An early critic of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who feared the worldwide ethnic revival of the late 1960s would lead to an  ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. She considered multiculturalism and  monoculturalism to be culturally determinist collectivism (in the sense that individual human beings have  no free choice in how they act and  are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that it  undermines the concept of free will, arguing that the human mind is  a tabula rasa at birth.

The liberal-feminist critique is  related to the liberal and  libertarian critique, since it  is concerned with what happens inside the cultural groups. In her 1999 essay, later expanded into an  anthology, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" the feminist and  political theorist Susan Okin argues that a concern for the preservation of cultural diversity should not overshadow the discriminatory nature of gender roles in many traditional minority cultures, that, at the very least, "culture" should not be used as an  excuse for rolling back the women's rights movement.

A prominent criticism in the US, later echoed in Europe, was that multiculturalism undermined national unity, hindered social integration and  cultural assimilation, and  led to the fragmentation of society into several ethnic factions - Balkanization.

In 1998, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and  other US administrations and  Pulitzer Prize winner, published a book with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.^[4] Schlesinger states that a new attitude - one that celebrates difference and  abandons assimilation - may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are  submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice"; however, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society.

In the United States, the cultural relativism implicit in multiculturalism attracted criticism. Often that was combined with an  explicit preference for western Enlightenment values as universal values. In his 1991 work, Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the entrenchment of multiculturalism in American universities undermined the universalist values that liberal education once attempted to foster. In particular, he was disturbed by the growth of ethnic studies programs (e.g., Black Studies).

Conservatives - in the US, largely Christian conservatives - tend to see multiculturalism as an  attack on America's traditional Christian culture. They may attribute the introduction of multiculturalism to the civil rights movement and  the  and  Nationality Services Act of 1965">1965 Immigration Act or  the (Hart-Celler Act).

Criticism of multiculturalism in the US was not always synonymous with opposition to immigration. Some politicians did address both themes, notably Pat Buchanan, who in 1993 described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.":

"The question we Americans need to address, before it  is answered for us, is: Does this First World nation wish to become a Third World country? Because that is  our destiny if we do not build a sea wall against the waves of immigration rolling over our shores....Who speaks for the Euro-Americans, who founded the USA?...Is it  not time to take America back?"

A recent critic of multiculturalism is  the political theorist Brian Barry. In his 2002 book Culture and  Equality: an  Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, he argues that some forms of multiculturalism can divide people, although they need to unite in order to fight for social justice.

Anti-racists of a Marxist theoretical perspective view white supremacy as an  internalized form of imperialism— that is, exploitation of other races for the accumulation of capital in the homeland. When racism is  thus analysed as a problem of political economy, the logical response is  to tear down its structural foundations—that is, imperialism. Multiculturalism stands in the way of such agenda, because it  implies that the grounds for racism in society are  not economic, but cultural or  ideological.

[edit] Canada

Approximately 20% of today's Canadian citizens were born outside Canada, the highest immigration rate of any G8 country. Recent immigrants are  largely concentrated in the cities of Vancouver, Montreal and  Toronto, which have  high population growth due to this concentrated immigration. In Canada, the most noted critics of multiculturalism are  Kenneth McRoberts, Neil Bissoondath, and  Daniel Stoffman.

As a young man, McRoberts worked for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and  Biculturalism, and  his career as a political scientist has roughly coincided with the policy of multiculturalism. While some argue that the shift in official discourse from biculturalism to multiculturalism has had a neutral effect on relations between Quebec and  the rest of Canada, McRoberts believes that it  was disastrous for Canadian nationalism, as it  offended Québecois and  their dualistic vision of Canada as a bilingual and  bicultural society.

To many French Canadians, multiculturalism threatened to reduce them to just another ethnic group. Of all Canadian provinces, Quebec has been the least supportive of multiculturalism, due in part to a widespread view that multiculturalism was implemented at the federal level to dilute the "two founding peoples" philosophy which had preceded it, thereby diminishing the place of the province's French majority within Canada, and  due in part to Quebec's policy internally of welcoming people of all origins but insisting that they assimilate into Quebec's French-speaking society. Recently, however, the more  assimilationist aspects of this policy have  been tempered with a recognition that Quebec is  a de facto pluralist society and  an understanding of pluralism as a feature of modern Quebec society or  any other society that welcomes immigrants. The Quebec government has therefore adopted a form of multiculturalism termed an  "interculturalism policy."

This policy seeks to integrate immigrants into the mainstream French-speaking society of Quebec on the basis of French, the language of the majority, as the common public language of all Québécois; all citizens are  in this way held to be invited to participate in a common civic culture. Interculturalism is  in this way consistent with the Quebec government's view of itself as the "national" government for all Québécois, because interculturalism is  viewed as less  threatening than multiculturalism, to the idea of Quebec's population as a single and  distinct nation. Whether as a first, second, or  third language, French becomes the instrument which allows the socialization of Québécois of all origins and  forces interaction between them.

In his Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, the  and  Tobago">Trinidad and  Tobago-born Bissoondath argues that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members, by confining them to cultural and  geographic ghettos. He also argues that cultures are  very complex, and  must be transmitted through close family and  kin relations. To him, the government view of cultures as being about festivals and  cuisine is  a crude oversimplification that leads to easy stereotyping.

Daniel Stoffman's Who Gets In raises serious questions about the policy of Canadian multiculturalism. Stoffman points out that many cultural practices, such as allowing dog meat to be served in restaurants and  street cockfighting, are  simply incompatible with Canadian and  Western culture. He also raises concern about the number of recent immigrants who are  not being linguistically integrated into Canada (i.e., not learning either English or  French). He stresses that multiculturalism works better in theory than in practice.

[edit] Opposition in Australia

The response to multiculturalism in Australia has been extremely varied, with a recent wave of criticism against it  in the past decade. an  anti-immigration party, the One Nation Party, was formed by Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s. it  enjoyed significant electoral success for a while, but is  now electorally marginalized. Other minor parties that oppose multiculturalism are  Australia First and  the Australian Worker's Party. Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia is, as of 2006, focussed on the position of Islamic immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the main targets of anti-immigration campaigns were immigrants from southern Europe, and  later east Asia.

A poll in December 2005 found that 80 percent of Australians surveyed supported the policy of multiculturalism [37].

A Federal Government proposal in 2006 to introduce a compulsory citizenship test, which would assess English skills and  knowledge of Australian values, sparked renewed debate over the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Andrew Robb, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and  Multicultural Affairs, told a conference in November 2006 that some Australians worried the term "multicultural" had been transformed by interest groups into a philosophy that put "allegiances to original culture ahead of national loyalty, a philosophy which fosters separate development, a federation of ethnic cultures, not one community". He added: "A community of separate cultures fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. it  is divisive. it  works against quick and  effective integration." [38] it  has been reported that the Howard Government is  considering replacing so-called "mushy multiculturalism" with a more  inclusive policy based on "shared national identity."

[ and  multiculturalism">edit] Islam, Europe and  multiculturalism

From the 1990s, especially in Europe, the debate on multiculturalism began to focus on Islam and  its status in the Western World. In several European countries, the majority of immigrants are  from Islamic countries - Algeria, Morocco and  Turkey. Although not all of them are  Muslims, their religion became a powerful symbol of their essential difference from the surrounding national community. (In Europe, only  and  Herzegovina">Bosnia, Albania and  European Turkey have  a substantial indigenous Muslim population). The perceived status of the immigrant minorities shifted - the 'Turkish immigrants' became the 'Muslim immigrants'. Conversely, the construction of mosques, and  the increased adoption of the Islamic headscarf and  in a few cases the burqa, made Muslims a distinctly visible minority. The examples cited by opponents of multiculturalism to show what they considered unacceptable, were increasingly Islam-related - female genital cutting and  honour killings, for instance. (Many Muslims dispute that these practices have  anything to do with Islam). The opponents began to appeal to a Clash of Civilisations perspective, seeing Islam as incompatible with democracy and  western culture. The emergence of Islamist terrorism confirmed, in their eyes, the dangers of multiculturalism and  immigration from Muslim countries. Pim Fortuyn, for instance, proposed a specific ban on 'Islamic' immigration. and  although strictly speaking it  is not a multiculturalism or  immigration issue, the possible accession of Turkey to the European Union became a contentious issue there.

In the United States, where most immigrants are  not Muslims, Islam did not dominate the multiculturalism issue to the same extent. However, in Canada, the possible introduction of sharia family courts became a contentious issue, and  received much media attention.^[5]

[edit] Reaction against multiculturalism in Europe

From the late 1990s multiculturalism came under sustained intellectual attack in Western Europe, again  largely, but not exclusively, from the political right. The reaction was more  vehement than in North America, since it  was associated with several other factors - the return of explicit nationalism as a political force, the revival of national identity, the rise of Euroscepticism, and  concerns about Islam in Europe. (The September 11 attacks in 2001 exacerbated the tensions around Muslim immigration, but they existed already). The period saw the rise of anti-immigrant populism in Europe, which was uniformly, and  often fanatically, hostile to multiculturalism. The debate became increasingly polarised, and  increasingly associated with Islam and  terrorism. The multiculturalism issue merged with the immigration policy issue. The most extreme rejection of multiculturalism comes from supporters of the Eurabia concept (see Bat Ye'or). For them, Islam is  a political movement comparable to fascism, which is  attempting to seize control of Europe, and  to destroy its civilisation. Their hostility to multiculturalism is  often combined with militant euroscepticism, as in this essay by blogger Fjordman:

The EU must die, or  Europe will die. It’s that simple. Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have  never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and  Multiculturalism. This is  closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and  the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and  bureaucrats. ... The creation of Eurabia is  the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, ... they are  creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are  overrunning the continent.^[6]

[edit] The Netherlands

In the 1950s, the Netherlands was generally a mono-ethnic and  monocultural society: it  was not monolingual, but almost everyone could speak standard Dutch. Its inhabitants shared a classic national identity, with a national mythos emphasising the Dutch Golden Age, and  national heroes such as Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. Major immigration in the form of labour migration began in the 1960s, and  accelerated in the 1970s, with Morocco and  Turkey as the main origin countries. From the 1970s, multiculturalism was a consensus ideology among the 'political class', and  determined official policy. The principle was expressed in the phrase "Integratie met behoud van eigen taal en cultuur", that is, social integration while retaining the language and  culture of the immigrant groups. Immigrants were treated as members of a monolithic cultural bloc, on the basis of nationality - their religion only became an  issue in the 1990s. These communities were addressed by the Dutch government, in what it  considered to be their own languages - Arabic for Moroccan immigrants, even though many of them did not speak it. Opposition to the consensus was politically marginal. The anti-immigration Centrumpartij had occasional electoral successes, but its leader Hans Janmaat was ostracised, and  fined for his strident opposition to multiculturalism.

The elite consensus on multiculturalism co-existed with widespread aversion to immigration, and  an ethnic definition of the Dutch nation. Dutch nationalism, and  support for a traditional national identity, never disappeared, but were not visible. When these factors re-entered political debate in the late 1990s, they contributed to the collapse of the consensus. The Netherlands has now attracted international attention for the extent to which it  reversed its previous multiculturalist policies, and  its policies on cultural assimilation have  been described as the toughest in Europe. ^[7]

The multicultural policy consensus regarded the presence of immigrant cultural communities as non-problematic, or  beneficial. Immigration was not subject to limits on cultural grounds: in practice, the immigration rate was determined by demand for unskilled labour, and  later by migration of family members. Gross non-Western immigration was about three million, but many of these later returned. [39] Net immigration, and  the higher birth rate of the immigrant communities, have  transformed the Netherlands since the 1950s. Although the majority are  still ethnic Dutch, in 2006 one fifth of the population was of non-Dutch ethnicity, about half of which were of non-western origin [40]. Immigration transformed Dutch cities especially: in Amsterdam, 55% of young people are  of non-western origin (mainly Turkish and  Moroccan). [41]. For opponents of multiculturalism and  immigration, this is  unacceptable and  wrong. At the end of the 1990s, their opposition became more  structured.

[edit] Intellectual critique

In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights'^[8] Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and  human rights are  superior to non-western culture and  values. They are  the product of the Enlightenment: Cliteur sees non-western cultures not as different, but as backward. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an  unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants. Cliteur lists infanticide, torture, slavery, oppression of women, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, gangs, female circumcision, discrimination by immigrants, suttee, and  the death penalty. Cliteur compares multiculturalism to the moral acceptance of Auschwitz, Stalin, Pol Pot and  the Ku Klux Klan.

Cliteur's 1999 work is  indicative of the polemic tone of the debate, in the following years. Most of the 'immigrant barbarities' which he names, are  regularly cited by opponents of multiculturalism, sometimes as a reductio ad absurdum, but also as factual practices of immigrants in the Netherlands.

In 2000, Paul Scheffer - a member of the PvdA (Labour Party) and  subsequently a professor of urban studies - published 'The multicultural drama',^[9] an  essay critical of both immigration and  multiculturalism. Scheffer is  a committed supporter of the nation-state, and  his starting point is  that homogeneity and  integration are  necessary for a society: the presence of immigrants undermines this. A society does have  an 'absorptive capacity' for those from other cultures, he says, but this has been exceeded in the Netherlands. Specifically:

• a huge influx of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, in combination with multiculturalism, resulted in spontaneous ethnic segregation.
• the Netherlands must take its own language, culture, and  history seriously, and  immigrants must learn this language, culture, and  history.
• multiculturalism and  immigration led to adaptation problems such as school drop-out, unemployment, and  high crime rates.
• a society which does not respect itself (its Dutch national identity) also has no value for immigrants
• multicultural policy ignored Dutch language acquisition, which should be a priority in education.
• Islam has not yet reformed itself, and  does not accept the  and  state">separation of church and  state. Some Muslims did not accept the law in Amsterdam because its mayor was Jewish.
• immigrants must always lose their own culture - that is  the price of immigration, a "brutal bargain" (quote from Norman Podhoretz)

Scheffer approvingly quoted the sociologist J.A.A. van Doorn, that the presence of immigrants in the Netherlands had "put the clock back" by 100 or  150 years. The high immigration rate, and  the lack of 'integration' threatened society, and  must be stopped. His essay had a great impact, and  led to what became known as the 'integration debate'. As in the essay, this was not simply about multiculturalism, but about immigration, Islam, the national identity, and  national unity.

In 2002, the legal scholar Afshin Ellian - a refugee from Iran - advocated a monocultural Rechtsstaat in the Netherlands.^[10] A liberal democracy cannot be multicultural, he argued, because multiculturalism is  an ideology and  a democracy has no official ideology. What is  more, according to Ellian, a democracy must be monolingual. The Dutch language is  the language of the constitution, and  therefore it  must be the only public language - all others must be limited to the private sphere. The Netherlands, he wrote, had been taken hostage by the left-wing multiculturalists, and  their policy was in turn determined by the Islamic conservatives. Ellian complained that there were 800 000 Muslims in the country, with 450 mosques, and  that the Netherlands had legalised the "feudal system of the Islamic Empire". Democracy and  the rule of law could only be restored by abolishing multiculturalism.

[edit] Political reaction

The intellectual rejection of multiculturalism was accompanied by a political transformation, which led to the abandonment of official multiculturalism. it  is often described in the Dutch media as a populist 'revolt' against the elite. The catalyst was Pim Fortuyn. He was a critic of multiculturalism, and  especially of what he called the "Islamisation of the Netherlands", but succeeded primarily because of his charisma. Unlike the intellectual critics, who wrote for fellow members of the elite, Fortuyn mobilised millions of disillusioned (and occasionly xenophobic) voters. Overturning the political stability of the 1990's, Fortuyn came close to being prime minister of the Netherlands.^[11] When he was assassinated in May 2002, his supporters saw him as a national martyr in the struggle against multiculturalism, although he was in fact shot by an  animal rights activist.

Following Fortuyn's death, open rejection of multiculturalism and  immigration ceased to be taboo. To a large extent, open racism also ceased to be taboo: negative reactions to immigrants became the norm, for a section of the population. The new cabinet, under premier Jan-Peter Balkenende instituted a hard-line assimilation policy, enforced by fines and  deportation, accompanied by far tighter controls on immigration and  asylum. Many former supporters of multiculturalism shifted their position. In a 2006 manifesto "one country, one society",^[12] several of them launched an  appeal for a homogeneous society.

The most prominent figure in the post-Fortuyn debate of the issue was Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her first criticisms of multiculturalism paralleled those of the early liberal-feminist critics in the United States - the emphasis on group identity and  group rights diminished individual liberty for those within the minorities, and  especially for women. As time went on, her criticism was increasingly directed at Islam itself, and  its incompatibility with democracy and  western culture. By 2004 she was the most prominent critic of Islam in Europe. When she scripted a short film on Islamic oppression of women, featuring texts from the Quran on the naked bodies of women, its director Theo van Gogh was assassinated by an  Islamist. Threatened with death and  heavily guarded, she spent most of her time in the United States, and  moved to Washington in 2006 to work for the American Enterprise Institute. In 2006 she also expressed support for the Eurabia thesis - that Europe is  being fully Islamised, and  that its non-Muslim inhabitants will be reduced to dhimmitude.^[13]

[edit] Reaction in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has continuous high immigration rates, among the highest in the EU. Most of the immigrants of the last decades came from the Indian sub-continent or  the Caribbean, in other words from the former colonies. Recently, the largest group of immigrants is  from eastern Europe, especially from Poland.

In the UK, supporters of the Labour government's approach saw it  as defending the rights of minorities to preserve their culture, while encouraging their participation as citizens — that is, integrating without assimilating. Critics say the policy fails on all accounts: if social conditions and  racism become barriers to the integration of minorities, then multiculturalism does not properly function. There is  now a lively debate in the UK over multiculturalism versus "social cohesion and  inclusion." The current Labour government appears to favour the latter. In the wake of the July 7 Bombings 2005 (which left over 50 people dead) the opposition Conservative shadow home secretary called on the government to scrap its "outdated" policy of multiculturalism.

Prominent critics of multiculturalism include Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Uganda-born author of After Multiculturalism, and  one-time black activist Trevor Phillips the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. In 2006, Phillips was criticised by London mayor Ken Livingstone, who accused him of fuelling hostility towards ethnic minorities, by attacking the principle of multiculturalism. Livingstone accused Phillips of being so right-wing that he would 'soon be joining the British National Party'. ^[14]

In the May 2004 edition of Prospect Magazine, David Goodhart, the Editor, temporarily couched the debate on multiculturalism in terms of whether a modern welfare state and  a "good society" is  sustainable as its citizens are  becoming increasingly diverse.[42] Open criticism of multiculturalism, given Prospect's pedigree and  reputation, was thereafter firmly part of the mainstream. Since then events - such as the London bombings - have  shifted the debate away from sustainability and  cohesion, towards a focus on the uneasy bedfellows of free speech and  security.

In November 2005 John Sentamu, the first member of an  ethnic minority to be appointed as Archbishop of York stated, “Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its pains.” [43]. Criticisms have  been voiced by bishop Nazir Ali of Rochester.

In August 2006, the community and  local government secretary Ruth Kelly made a speech, which some saw as signalling the end of multiculturalism as official policy.^[15] In November 2006, Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that Britain has certain "essential values" and  that these are  a "duty". He did not reject multiculturalism as such, but he included British heritage among the essential values: ^[16]

"When it  comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and  its shared heritage - then that is  where we come together, it  is what we hold in common."

[edit] Reactions in Germany

Multiculturalism was more  controversial in Germany, and  the policy consensus weaker, than in Britain and  the Netherlands. (German history makes policy on minorities and  national identity a delicate issue). However, the reaction against multiculturalism from the late 1990s was comparable. In Germany the national debate centred around the concept of Leitkultur or  leading culture. Originally a form of multiculturalism proposed by the Orientalist Bassam Tibi (comparable to the 'constitutional patriotism' of Jürgen Habermas), the word Leitkultur quickly came to indicate cultural assimilation into German culture. it  is widely used by opponents of multiculturalism, to indicate their alternative, a de facto monoculturalism.

[edit] Reactions in France

French political thought is  generally reluctant to endorse multiculturalism, which it  often identifies with communitarism, which is  in turn perceived as in contradiction with French republican values. French official policy pursues integration (major public events such as football matches involving the French team, or  the transfer to the Pantheon of the remains of the novelist Alexandre Dumas (fils), celebrate this aspect), and  does not accord specific support to linguistic and  cultural minorities as such, be they of French origin or  from further afield. The multi-racial character of much of French urban society is  an evidence and  official policy is  generally favourable to métissage. (Hence expressions such as beur, blanc, rouge.)

[edit] Post-multiculturalism in Europe

Following the collapse of the consensus on multiculturalism, several European Union countries have  introduced policies for 'social cohesion', 'integration', and  (sometimes) 'assimilation'. They are  sometimes a direct reversal of earlier multiculturalist policies, and  seek to assimilate immigrant minorities and  restore a de facto monocultural society. They include restriction of immigration - assimilation and  immigration law on new immigrants are  no longer seen as separate issues. The policies include:

• compulsory language courses in the national language, assessed by a compulsory language test - for immigrants, and  in some cases for those of immigrant descent
• compulsory courses and/or tests on  and  nationalism">national history, on the constitution and  the legal system, see Life in the United Kingdom test
• introduction of an  official national history, such as the national canon defined for the Netherlands by the van Oostrom Commission,^[17] and  promotion of that history, for instance by exhibitions about national heros
• official campaigns to promote national unity, and  individual identification with the nation - such as the campaign Du bist Deutschland [44] in Germany
• official lists of national values, and  tests of acceptance of these values
• tests designed to elicit 'unacceptable' values, such as the "Muslim-test" in Germany. In Baden-Württemberg immigrants are  asked what they would do, if their son says he is  a homosexual. (The expected answer is  that they would accept it).^[18]
• restriction on spouses or  children joining immigrants already in the country, and  age and  income restrictions on non-western marriage partners, sometimes with language tests for potential spouses, in their country of origin
• official declarations - so far not laws - specifying that only the national language may be spoken in certain areas.
• language prohibitions in schools, universities, and  public buildings. Language bans have  also been proposed for public transport and  hospitals.
• prohibitions on Islamic dress and  especially the burqa.^[19]
• introduction of an  oath of allegiance or  loyalty oath for immigrants, usually following naturalisation, and  usually during a compulsory ceremony.

Some of the measures, especially those seeking to promote patriotic identification, have  an element of kitsch. In the Netherlands, the naturalisation ceremony includes a gift symbolising national unity. In Gouda it  is a candle in the national colours red-white-blue, in Amsterdam a Delftware potato with floral motives.^[20]

There are  proposed measures, which go much further than these. They typically, but not always, come from right-wing parties and  their supporters. Although implementation is  not on the political agenda in any EU state, the proposals illustrate the 'post-multicultural' climate: a loyalty oath for all citizens, legal prohibition of public use of a foreign language, cessation of all immigration, withdrawal from the European Union, a compulsory (non-military) national service,^[21] a ban on the construction of mosques,^[22] closure of all Islamic schools,^[23] or  a complete ban on Islam.^[24]

[edit] Polarisation

Although these policies often have  the stated aim of increasing national unity, one result has been an  increased polarisation.^[25] With the disappearance of former taboos, open criticism of the culture and  values of specific minorities became common. Muslims in Britain or  the Netherlands hear that their culture is  backward, that western culture is  superior, and  that they have  a duty to adopt it. In turn, overly-defensive reactions^[26] include an  increased self-identification as 'Muslims', and  adoption of Islamic dress by women and  'Islamic' beards by men. Part of the Muslim minority is  now alienated and  hostile to the society they live in, and  sympathetic to terrorism.^[27] In Amsterdam's secondary schools, about half the Moroccan minority does not identify with the Netherlands: they see their identity as 'Muslim', and  regularly express anti-western views.^[28] In turn society is  increasingly hostile to Muslims: a survey showed that 18% in Britain think that "a large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense of loyalty to this country and  are prepared to condone or  even carry out acts of terrorism".^[29] A TNS/Global poll showed that 79% in Britain would feel "uncomfortable living next to a Muslim".^[30] A major attitude survey of teenagers in Flanders showed that 75% refuse to have  a relationship with a black person, a Muslim, or  an immigrant. Half want all immigration stopped, and  41% say they distrust anyone from another ethnic background.^[31]

The rejection of the multicultural consensus in Europe included the revival of a traditional national identity, often defined by ethnicity. Paradoxically, that excludes not only first-generation immigrants, but their identifiable descendants, from full membership of the nation. New terms for minorities of immigrant descent have  come into use: the (originally geological) term allochtoon in Belgium and  the Netherlands, and  'nichtdeutsche Herkunft' or  'ndH' in Germany ('non-German origin'). Both are  applied regardless of citizenship. The renewed emphasis on historical culture places higher demands on cultural assimilation. Immigrants must learn to identify and  describe culture heros and  historical figures such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel and  William of Orange.^[32] The adoption of semi-official 'national values' may occasionally undermine the national unity, which it  is supposed to promote. For instance, the 'Muslim test' in Baden-Württemberg implies that those who do not accept homosexuality, cannot be German. it  was criticised for this, and/or for inconsistency (it was introduced by a Christian-Democrat administration).

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Cosmopolitanism
• Cultural mosaic
• Cultural pluralism
• Cultural competence
• Ethnic origin
• Global justice
• Intercultural competence
• Interculturalism
• Nation-building
• Nationalism
• Political correctness
• Eurabia
• Islamic dress controversy in Europe
• Racial integration
• Racialism
• Transculturation

[edit] External links

• News (10-Apr-2004): British Head of Commission for Racial Equality says the term should be scrapped
• Commentary and  user comments from Open Democracy - Multiculturalism: translating difference
• The Menace of Multiculturalism by Cameron McKenzie
• Davis attacks UK multiculturalism - BBC News article concerning Conservative opposition to multiculturalism
• From Paris to Cairo: Resistance of the Unacculturated
• "Multiculturalism - the failed experiment" tygerland.net - by AS Heath, November 2, 2005
• A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh, and  shudder for the future. By Francis Fukuyama
• CICB Center of Intercultural Competence
• Mute Magazine Vol 2 #2, Dis-integrating Multiculturalism
• Thirty Years of Multiculturalism in Canada, 1971-2001. Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies. Analysis of opinion survey on multiculturalism.