A strong national identity in a multiethnic society requires a strong commitment to the accommodation of difference

Ellie Vasta

Some European countries of immigration are currently experiencing a widespread ‘moral panic’ about immigrants and ethnic and religious diversity. This has led to a questioning of policies that recognize the maintenance of group difference and the formation of ethno-cultural and religious communities. Such approaches, which have variously been labelled ‘cultural’, ‘multicultural’, ‘diversity’ or ‘minority’ policies, share important common features concerning group recognition and group-based service provision. A backlash has occurred in policy and in public discourse, with migrants being blamed for not meeting their ‘responsibility to integrate’, hiding behind what are perceived to be ‘backward or illiberal cultural practices’. Such positions are often based on a disregard of racial, gender and class inequalities. In Europe, in both policy and public discourses, there has been a shift away from multiculturalism to a demand for integration, cohesion and in some cases, assimilationism. But instead of abandoning multiculturalism, we need to expand it.

The arguments advanced against multiculturalism are numerous: Multiculturalism leads to segregation; it leads to welfare dependency; it prevents immigrants from integrating into the dominant culture and national identity; by extension, immigrants do not take the responsibility to integrate; multiculturalism undermines western democratic values; it allows an inflated ‘tolerance’ to cultural and religious difference; it is too focused on cultural rights of groups rather than on the rights of the individual. Ultimately, it concentrates too much on ethnic cultures, identities and religions to the detriment of immigrant integration into the language, culture and traditions of the dominant culture.

These arguments are mainly concerned with cultural recognition and with national identities. Rarely, do the arguments concentrate on the ongoing inequality experienced by many immigrant groups through various state institutions and structures. It is this inequality that acts as a barrier to integration and social cohesion. As too little attention is given to these problems, most European countries of immigration have not fully engaged with ethnic diversity and multiculturalism to make it a genuine and workable process. The implementation of multicultural (and even integration) policies and programmes vary from the stated goals and strategies.

Social cohesion or immigrant participation cannot be achieved without immigrants and ethnic minorities developing a sense of belonging. But this cannot be engineered directly through the likes of Britishness or Dutchness tests, or a policy shift towards assimilationism.  A sense of belonging, shared values and trust can only emerge from the people themselves. In other words, social cohesion cannot be engineered. The structures and processes of equality need to provide the basis and resources for integration, out of which a sense of belonging is likely to emerge. In order to achieve this, rather than abandon multiculturalism, we must expand it by considering four principles:

1. Mutual accommodation

2. Multiculturalism that embraces the whole society – it should not refer to only immigrants

3. Equality and full participation

4. Racism - engaging with racism/racial discrimination as a fundamental social phenomenon deeply rooted in the histories, cultures, traditions and institutions of western democracies.

Mutual Accommodation

One of the main building blocks missing from current or earlier policies of multiculturalism or integration is mutual accommodation.  Accommodation involves an internalization of difference. The collective characteristics of inserted groups become accepted as distinctions within social positions and membership groups. Whilst mutual accommodation does occur at an everyday level, there is very little debate about the mutual recognition of values, for example, around the family, in relation to women, children etc. in policy and in public discourse.

Some theorists emphasize the importance of cultural recognition of and respect for immigrant cultures. To varying degrees, cultural recognition has been taken on board by numerous countries of immigration. But the aspects that liberal democracies find difficult to consider are the granting of cultural rights and changes in the dominant culture. Mutual accommodation is not just about cultural recognition, but about structural changes where necessary and ensuring structural equality for ethnic minorities.

Bhikhu Parekh, through a framework of ‘civic’ or ‘critical multiculturalism’, develops his notion of a multicultural society by suggesting the need for a ‘common sense of belonging’. We can arrive at this by developing ‘a body of moral values which deserve the respect of all human beings’ says Parekh. He advocates that ‘all constituent cultures’ should participate in the creation of a climate of equality and they should have the ‘ability to interrogate each other’. The outcome cannot be determined.  So, different values, civic and cultural, have to be put to the test through dialogue and a collective language needs to emerge.

Multiculturalism includes the whole society

The second additional principle is based on the idea that multiculturalism should belong to everyone, not just immigrants. By establishing that multiculturalism is for everyone, a foundation is provided for the process of ‘mutual accommodation’. If multiculturalism belongs to everyone, it undermines the claim that multiculturalism is segregationist and sets up a move away from the arguments that ‘we have been too tolerant and benevolent’ or that ‘Islam is a backward religion’.

Multiculturalism is not about pluralism as in separatism or tribalism. Rather, it is a philosophy and policy that promotes the acceptance of immigration and of cultural diversity by encouraging the recognition of immigrants and their children as legitimate citizens by the society and its institutions. This entails an acceptance and affirmation of the fluidity of the national identity which in any case continues to change through the process of globalisation and through the interaction of cultures at the local level. The state can introduce programmes that inform the society - established communities and immigrants alike - about cultural diversity. This is the point of pluralism or multiculturalism – that cultural diversity becomes an accepted value.

Multiculturalism can include the whole society through its national identity. In turn, multiculturalism can challenge the perceived homogeneous imagined national identity. Multiculturalism is not antithetical to, but rather is a reformer of national identity …it does not make sense to encourage a strong multicultural or minority identities and weak common or national identities; strong multicultural identities are a good thing…but they need a framework of vibrant, dynamic, national narratives and the ceremonies and rituals which give expression to a national identity…And if there is nothing strong, purposive and inspiring to integrate into, why bother with integration?

The idea of a strong national identity needs to be pushed further. A strong national identity in a multiethnic society requires a strong commitment to the accommodation of difference. Given that there is a propensity for lists of what constitutes Britishness, accommodating diversity and the associated symbolism is paramount. If integration policy is to be a genuine ‘two-way process’, then the Canadians offer the best model for integration, through their policy of multiculturalism. This is due to the importance given to the accommodation of diverse ethnic/cultural/religious identities and its symbolic importance for the national identity. Indeed, that integration should be seen as a two-way process becomes irrelevant because first of all, it has become a multi-way process and secondly, because multiculturalism is enshrined in their constitution, it has become a part of the social fabric. If countries of immigration cannot accept the multidimensionality of the national identity, then they cannot establish the process of mutual accommodation. This inability in turn will prohibit immigrant ‘sense of belonging’.

Equality and Full Participation

This third additional principle – equality and full participation – simply provides an emphasis to the first of the two key principles concerned with social equality and participation. This principle requires more than introducing anti-discrimination laws etc. Rather, there is a need to introduce new structural strategies and practices that deal with long-term inequality in the labour market, education etc that continues into the second generation. By equality we mean equality of access and outcomes. Problems with educational attainment and labour market participation have led to widespread social exclusion and alienation among some immigrant and ethnic minority groups. Immigrants who are economically and socially marginalised and who do not have a voice, are oppressed.

Participation is usually understood as voting rights, being involved in the decision-making process and possessing citizenship. Many migrants do have voting rights, but have little involvement or representation in decision-making processes. Participation should refer to two factors – inclusion into the main institutions of our society as well as involvement in associational life. The three main aspects of associational life – private, civic and public – need to be opened up to scrutiny and public debate in order to accommodate migrants. The very basis of these three elements of associational life is likely to change over time when various cultures come together in open discussion. In many European countries, immigrants rarely participate in non-immigrant organisations, although the number of parliamentary representatives from ethnic minority communities is on the rise. There are few structures that would facilitate a sharing of world views, of religious views, of views that constitute the common good. Immigrants need their own collective associations some of which are arranged to defend their rights. Immigrant organisations and associations are important though some communities are not well organised and may need help. Resources need to be allocated to help immigrants, and women in particular, understand their rights and obligations, and this is best done through community and public dialogue. It cannot be achieved through coercion.

Racism

My fourth additional principle is that countries of immigration need to come to terms with the existence of racism and acknowledge the destructive effects this has on immigrants personally, as a collective and in terms of settlement and inclusion. One of the major barriers to immigrant integration is systemic institutional racism. For example, the large gap in unemployment rates between ‘natives and ‘whites’’ and immigrants mentioned earlier in the Netherlands and the UK is frequently put down to cultural factors in the immigrant cultures, lack of effective networks, lack of individual qualifications. But these explanations cannot be justified, for example, for people with higher qualifications who still have higher unemployment rates than the ‘natives’ in the Netherlands. While UK institutions are well aware of institutional racism, the problem remains. In the Netherlands, where they do not use the term racism, preferring to call the problem discrimination, systemic racial discrimination remains. Many immigrants and their children remain marginalised whatever the policy of inclusion.

In democratic societies, people work together to solve collective problems. But immigrants are often forced into mobilizing resources to deal with persistent racial and religious discrimination. Guarding one’s language, culture and religion is one way of dealing with a new social environment, but it also helps immigrants to deal with racism. Ethnic identification and religion often become the strategies with which immigrants and ethnic minorities struggle against racism and marginalization. This is often labelled ‘identity politics’ or ‘segregation’, yet racism and socio-economic marginalisation often force people back into the cultures and traditions that give them a sense of continuity and security. Although many countries of immigration attempt to deal with racism by introducing anti-racist discrimination laws etc, more needs to be accomplished as often the political will to bring about real change is lacking. Sivanandan emphasises that ‘it is only in combating racism that multiculturalism becomes progressive. The fight for multiculturalism and the fight against racism go hand-in…’ says Sivanandan. Currently, Islamophobia is a form of racist discrimination. Ultimately, systemic racism creates ongoing alienation and undermines the possibility of community solidarity.

Conclusion: Multiculturalism or Integration and Social Cohesion?

In many countries of immigration there is a general shift away from multiculturalism to integration, cohesion and, in some cases, assimilation. Integration signals a move from accommodating cultural diversity, away from recognition of ethnic, cultural, religious and other differences and identities. Multiculturalism refers to the process of accommodating difference. I argue for an expanded multiculturalism because the danger with ‘integration and cohesion’ is that the accommodation of diversity will be lost. Parekh so poignantly reminds us that unless diversity is nurtured, it runs the risk of fading away. Diversity, through multiculturalism, needs to be part of the national policy and public symbolism. The broader national project requires more work on ensuring equality of access and outcomes, making provisions for cultural recognition, developing foundations for mutual accommodation and ensuring that everyone owns multiculturalism. This would mean that the current forms of and concerns with integration, assimilation and cohesion would be unnecessary. Getting on well together and adapting to each other will be more easily achieved if it is understood as a part of the broader multicultural project. Rather than marginalise it, a critical and expanded multiculturalism is more likely to build up grass-roots solidarity.

Dr.Ellie Vasta is a sociologist and editor of Citizenship, Community and Democracy (2000), London: Macmillan; and co-editor with Vasoodeven Vuddamalay (2006) International Migration and the Social Sciences: confronting national experiences in Australia, France and Germany, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. She is Senior Researcher and Program Head, Integration and Social Change Program, Centre On Migration, Policy And Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford.