In defence of multiculturalism – theoretical challenges

ABSTRACT

Although it seems that multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failed experiment or sham in the public debate, there has been an ongoing internal academic discussion of theoretical approaches to multiculturalism. This theoretical dialogue is, of course, parallel to and affected by developments in society. This article dissects and analyses some key and ‘classical’ nodes in the theoretical exploration of multiculturalism and brings forward key dimensions in this field of research. The main bulk of the literature used is from the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century. The most significant works on multiculturalism were written during this period and what we see today is often a more politicized discussion of multiculturalism. The article discerns and identifies some key dimensions and questions in the theoretically informed discussion of multiculturalism. Four challenges are identified. The first concerns the conceptualization of collective or group identities. The second concerns the discussion of ‘race’ and ethnicity and the third identity politics. A fourth challenge is raised by questions about the limits of the national space and about transnationalism.

KEYWORDS:

• Multiculturalism
• identity
• identity politics
• transnationalism
• ethnicity

Introduction

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been globally praised for her refugee policy and politics. However, as early as 2010 she had surprised her supporters by stating that multiculturalism in Germany had ‘utterly failed’ (Lentin & Titley, 2011). In an article in the Washington Post of 14 December 2015 under the headline ‘Multiculturalism is a sham, says Angela Merkel’ we can read that Merkel followed up her earlier statement by stating that: ‘Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie’, or sham’. She added: ‘We want and will reduce the number of refugees noticeably’. To Merkel, multiculturalism symbolized the emergence of isolated societies within Germany and a failure to assimilate immigrants. Meanwhile, in 2015, right-wing and populist movements were also gaining strength in many European countries.

The term ‘multiculturalism’ became prominent in planning and policy discussion in the 1960s and ‘70s. This discussion evolved as a response to the emergence of new social movements in Western societies which were organized around issues of ethnicity, ‘race’, gender, sexuality and nationality. These new social movements challenged the primacy of class politics and introduced new agendas (Umemoto & Zambonelli, 2012). The term ‘multiculturalism’ has been used in several different ways: for example, as a political model, a policy model and to describe a set of social practices. It has usually been regarded as a defence of cultural pluralism and diversity, protecting the characteristics and unique contributions of a range of cultural and minority groups. Historically, it has also been regarded as a departure from the monocultural nation-state and the ideal of assimilation. Multiculturalism is associated with identity politics, that is, a political movement centred on the recognition of minority rights and cultural differences. The theoretical discussion of multiculturalism in the 1990s was, therefore, dominated by themes of different human rights and social justice. Issues of social cohesion and shared symbolic and public spheres were not prioritized at that time (Sohrabi, 2019).

Within a few decades, multiculturalism has moved from being celebrated and praised to being called a failed experiment. Of course, ‘multiculturalism’ is a slippery and fluid term. From the beginning, the far-right has rejected multiculturalism and the left has pointed out that the celebration of cultural differences has often contributed to a neglect and ignorance of racism and inequalities. Consequently, multiculturalism has been and is a contested concept. At the same time, it is easy to see that multiculturalism as a phenomenon, a lived experience and an integration policy is here to stay (cf. Mathieu, 2018). Or, as Alana Lentil and Gavan Titley express it:

But for all the angst invested and ink spilt about it multiculturalism is less of an ethos than a simple statement of fact. It emerges not from government edict but the lived experience of people, and at different times may be untidy, vibrant, problematic, dynamic or divisive. (Lentin & Titley, 2011, p. ix)

Multiculturalism is often contrasted with integrationism and assimilation. In addition, it is often used to assert truths of cultural hybridity and as an enlightening political force. Today, however, multiculturalism has become critiqued from both the right and the left. Whereas right-wing parties fear the particularistic excesses of multicultural politics and feed on conspiracy theories of the Great Replacement – whereby the white population is gradually extinguished and replaced by immigrants and others – left-wing parties regards multicultural tolerance as a force which obfuscates the power and racism involved in setting the limits of tolerance.

The elasticity and fluidity of the concept of multiculturalism, which enables and supports differing political purposes, complicate its use as a fixed policy practice. Multiculturalism has apparently become the battleground between cultural purists, who defend the use of static and homogenous concepts of identity, and cultural innovators, who celebrate hybridity and cultural fusions (Werbner & Modood, 1997). Does this mean that it is time to throw away the concept and replace it with other possible concepts? According to Chin (Chin, 2017), the highly contested nature of the concept serves a number of crucial functions in Western societies. She writes: ‘Precisely because the term’s meanings are not straightforward and settled, it has facilitated contentious debate about how to manage social diversity in the context of law and politics, education, and popular culture’ (p. 21).

One key problem in the academic discussion of multiculturalism is that confusion and conflation exist between the academic and theoretical debate about the concept on the one hand and the way the concept is used by the media and public opinion on the other. In everyday life, we must deal with the consequences of a multicultural society in terms of issues of minority rights, cultural values, national identities and ongoing debates on immigration and refugee quotas. Instead of looking at multiculturalism as an ideal or as a dystopian future, it would probably be better to develop a theoretical position which focuses on the possibilities of using multiculturalism as a point of departure for dialogue, compromise and critical discussion about identity, recognition and community.

Theories of multiculturalism in transition

According to Modood (2005), a significant change occurred in multicultural policies from the 1960s to the 2000s. In the 1960s, the right of assimilation and the tolerance of differences were on the agenda, whereas since the early 2000s the focus has been on the right to have one’s differences recognized and supported in the public. These historical points of transformation can serve to enlighten us about the contemporary tensions in multicultural politics. Key issues of minority rights, representation, identity and racism are raised in the discussion of the be or not to be of multiculturalism.

Although it appears that multiculturalism has been dismissed as a failed experiment or sham within the public debate, there has been an ongoing internal academic discussion of theoretical approaches to multiculturalism (Kymlicka, 2007, 2019; Parekh, 2000; Reus-Smith, 2018; Warikoo, 2020; Wieviorka, 2012). This theoretical dialogue is, of course, parallel to and affected by developments in society. The aim of this article is to dissect and analyse some key and ‘classical’ nodes in the theoretical exploration of multiculturalism and to highlight some key dimensions in this field of research. The main bulk of the literature used here is from the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the twenty-first century. The most significant works on multiculturalism were written during this period and what we see today is often a more politicized discussion of multiculturalism. The intention here is to discern and identify some key dimensions and issues in the original theoretically informed discussion of multiculturalism. It is hoped that this will enable a sound academic discussion of multiculturalism and will also rescue the concept from oblivion. In the following sections, key theoretical positions will be explored. This will be followed by an analysis of key dimensions and conflictual nodes in the politics of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism as recognition

In his 1992 book Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, Charles Taylor basically set the agenda for the contemporary philosophical discussion of multiculturalism (Taylor et al., 1994). At the centre of his discussion of multiculturalism we find the concept of recognition:

A number of strands in contemporary politics turn on the need, sometimes the demand for recognition. The need, it can be argued, is one of the driving forces behind nationalist movements in politics. And the demand comes to the fore in a number of ways in today’s politics, on behalf of minority or ‘subaltern’ groups, in some forms of feminism and in what is today called the politics of ‘multiculturalism’. (Taylor et al., 1994, p. 25)

Taylor’s theoretical foundation can be found in his discussion of recognition and identity. Identity designates a person’s understanding of who they are and their fundamental conception of themselves as human beings. Identity is partly shaped by recognition but also by misrecognition. The absence of recognition or misrecognition – negative images of the person – lies at the heart of identity formation. According to Taylor’s theory, identity is formed in dialogues and interactions with other people.

In modern identity politics, the demand for equal recognition and equal value for all human beings presupposes a set of difference-blind principles. However, this difference-blind society is, in fact, a reflection of the existence of a hegemonic culture. This type of liberalism, then, may be regarded as a particularism masquerading as the universal. Taylor dissects and challenges this form of liberalism and instead suggests that it is possible to combine a uniform adherence to liberal rights with the importance of cultural survival and the integrity of cultures. Although presenting a modified liberal position, Taylor does not claim that liberalism should adopt complete cultural neutrality. For example, the controversy over Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses shows that there are limits to cultural neutrality. Taylor writes: ‘Liberalism is a fighting creed’ (p. 62). He continues: ‘There will be variations when it comes to applying the schedules of rights, but not where incitements to assassination are concerned’ (p. 62), referring to the death sentence served on Rushdie. Taylor defends the separation between the church and the state and he also defends secular values, which he asserts originated historically within Christianity.

Taylor’s equation concerns how to deal with cultural minorities’ sense of marginalization without compromising basic principles of human rights and philosophical boundaries. Among other things, he suggests that the educational system should enlarge the canon of accredited authors to include women and people of non-European cultures. Enlarging the curriculum means giving recognition to the excluded. Inspired by Frantz Fanon, Taylor asserts the importance of a multicultural curriculum to counteract misrecognition and images of inferiority. He also warns against using the standards and models of the North Atlantic civilizations to judge all civilizations and cultures. He writes:

What there is is the presumption of equal worth I described above. A stance we take in embarking on the study of the other. Perhaps we don’t need to ask whether it’s something that others can demand from us as a right. We might simply ask whether this is the way we ought to approach others. (Taylor, 1992, p. 72)

Taylor places recognition and identity at the forefront of the discussion of multiculturalism. The identities he discusses are largely collective social identities, based on social categories such as gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc. Although implying power relationships and hegemonic structures, Taylor leans heavily on an interactionist theory of recognition, identity and dialogue.

Multiculturalism as group agency

Tariq Modood is a leading authority on ethnic minorities in Great Britain. Modood argues for the need for multiculturalism. In contrast to all those who declare the end of the ‘multicultural experiment’, Modood states that we need more, nor less, multiculturalism. He says it is the form of integration that best meets the contemporary situation in a post-9/11 and post-7/7 Europe. By multiculturalism, Modood means the political accommodation of immigrant minorities in Western societies. Rather than stressing the importance of the individual’s rights, Modood emphasizes the key role of group identities:

To summarize, multiculturalism or the accommodation of minorities is different from integration because it recognizes groups, not just individuals, at the level of: identities, associations, belonging, including diasporic connections; behaviour, culture, religious practice, etc.; and political mobilization. (Modood, 2007/2013, p. 46)

According to Modood, multiculturalism presupposes liberalism’s matrix of principles, institutions and political norms but it also challenges those principles and norms. At the heart of multiculturalism, we find a constant assertion, re-imagination and negotiation of group formations. Rather than require that group-based racialized, ethnic and religious identities are privatized, multiculturalism asserts the necessity of recognition and presence in the public sphere. In Modood’s version of multiculturalism, integration is a two-way process that requires civic interaction and compromises.

Multiculturalism is clearly beyond toleration and state neutrality for it involves active support for cultural difference, active discouragement against hostility and disapproval and the remaking of the public sphere in order to fully include marginalized identities. (Modood, 2007/2013, p. 59)

Modood claims that a multiculturalist sensibility is present in Europe but that this sensibility does not extend itself to accommodate Muslims. The emergence of a Muslim political agency has thrown multiculturalism into ‘theoretical and practical disarray’ (Modood, 2007/2013, p. 78). Modood thereby questions whether political secularism is central to multiculturalism (cf. Lægaard, 2017). At the core of this contemporary challenge is the primacy given to religion as the basis of identity, norms, values, representation, etc. When Muslims assert themselves as Muslims in the public sphere, religion becomes a central issue in the construction of multiculturalism. According to Wieviorka (2012), for example, multiculturalism deals with culture and not religion. He writes: ‘In its countless material variants, secularism ensures the separation of the religious from the political; it does not constitute a policy of recognition of identities’ (p. 228). In contrast to this position, Modood is arguing for a moderate form of secularism which involves rethinking and opening up for an accommodation of Muslims in Europe. He advocates the use of mutual learning processes in crafting the conditions of multifaith and multicultural citizenship. The main aim would be to make it easier for minority-faith communities to play a role in the national culture alongside Christians and humanists (Modood, 2019).

Modood’s theoretical position emphasizes the importance of group identities and the equivalence of identities based on gender, class, ethnicity and religion. Although he is aware that group identities are complex and often contradictory, he stresses the importance of collectivity and the dynamic interplay between the majority on one hand and various minorities on the other. Without a majority, no minorities exist.

Multiculturalism as minority rights

In the last forty years, we have witnessed a veritable revolution around the world in the relations between states and ethnocultural minorities. Older models of assimilationist and homogenizing nation-states are increasingly being contested, and often displaced, by newer ‘multicultural’ models of the state and of citizenship. This is reflected, for example, in the widespread adoption of cultural and religious accommodations for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and self-government rights for indigenous people. (Kymlicka, 2007, p. 3)

Canadian professor Will Kymlicka has defended liberal multiculturalism since the 1990s. He identifies three trends in the development towards multicultural politics (Kymlicka, 2007). The first trend concerns the treatment of indigenous people, such as the aboriginal peoples of Australia and the Sami of Scandinavia. Whereas policies in the past had the goal that these populations would eventually disappear and die out, there has been a dramatic reversal of these policies since the early 1970s. Today there is far more acceptance that indigenous populations will exist into the future, and as distinct societies within the larger nations, and that they must have cultural and self-government rights. The second trend concerns sub-state national groups, such as the Scots and Welsh in Britain and the Catalans and Basques in Spain. In the past these sub-state groups were regarded as a threat against the state and these countries have tried to suppress any forms of sub-state strivings. Today, there is a greater acceptance that these nationalist aspirations must be accommodated in some way or another. Often this accommodation has taken the form of multination and multilingual federations.

A third trend concerns the integration of immigrant groups. Historically, immigrants were encouraged to assimilate into the pre-existing society and its rules and norms. Since the late 1960s, however, immigration policies have changed. A more multicultural model of integration has evolved and immigrants are now encouraged to visibly and proudly express their uniqueness. However, there are great variations in how multicultural policies have developed in different countries. In many countries, we are seeing a retreat from multiculturalism.

Liberal multiculturalism – in Kymlicka’s version – means balancing between multicultural policies and the three traditional liberal-democratic rights of freedom, equality and solidarity (Kymlicka, 2007, 2010). In his article ‘Testing the Liberal Multiculturalist Hypothesis’ (2010), Kymlicka presents evidence of liberal multiculturalism. He gives the example of the Canadian situation, where multiculturalism is enshrined in the constitution. Compared to other Western democracies, immigrants in Canada are more likely to become citizens. Political parties in Canada also actively recruit and promote minority candidates for political office. Children of immigrants also show better educational outcomes than in any other Western democracy. Kymlicka also asserts that Canadians regard immigrants and demographic diversity as a central part of the Canadian identity. To sum up, Kymlicka presents some evidence for the success of the multicultural strategy. He also criticizes the assumption that we have moved into a post-multicultural age.

Kymlicka focuses primarily on how multicultural politics and policies are manifested in best practices and in the everyday life of minorities and immigrants. He operates on the dividing line between ethnocultural diversity and more general human rights and values. He argues that liberal multiculturalism actually deepens liberalization and democratization processes in the West. On an international level, however, he is much more pessimistic. He writes:

the time for a real push on minority rights may have passed. The early 1990s offered an unprecedented window of opportunity for dramatic and creative innovations in the field of minority rights, but that window has gradually closed, with the job half-done. (Kymlicka, 2007, p. 315)

Multiculturalism as hybridity

In an interview in 2007, Stuart Hall states: ‘As you know I don’t like the word multiculturalism, but I am interested in the multicultural question’ (Hall & Schwarz, 2007, p. 150). He defines this question in the following way.

And what that is, for me, is this: how are people from different cultures, different backgrounds, with different languages, different religious beliefs, produced by different and highly uneven histories, but who find themselves either directly connected because they’ve got to make a life together in the same place, or digitally connected because they occupy the same symbolic worlds – how are they to make some sort of common life together without retreating into warring tribes, eating one another, or insisting that other people must look exactly like you, behave exactly like you, think exactly like you – that is to say cultural assimilation?

Hall (2000) makes a distinction between ‘multi-cultural’ and ‘multiculturalism’. Multi-cultural describes the problems of governance faced by societies in which different cultural communities try to build a common life while at the same time retaining their differences and identities. Multiculturalism refers to the policies and strategies used to handle the complex challenges generated in multi-cultural societies. Multiculturalism can be articulated in many ways. Conservative multiculturalism insists on assimilation and compliance with the majority; liberal multiculturalism tries to integrate differences into the mainstream while also allowing certain particularistic cultural practices; critical multiculturalism focuses on power, hierarchies, and resistance, and so on.

The multi-cultural question activates several historical and socio-cultural dilemmas. Hall is not primarily interested in defining and presenting a clear position on multiculturalism. Rather, he uses the multi-cultural question as a starting point to theorize about communities, identities, traditions, diasporas and ‘race’/ethnicity. He identifies several transruptive effects generated by the multi-cultural question. Firstly, he notices a conflation between biologically and culturally inferiorizing discourses. The discourses of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are often used as two parallel logics in the register of racism. Secondly, tradition is questioned and un-settled. There is no fixed relationship between tradition and modernity. In diasporic conditions, people adopt shifting, multiple and hyphenated positions and identities (Black-and-British, British-Asian, etc.). Hybridity refers not to hybrid individuals but to a refusal to categorize everything into binaries. Culture is always negotiated, dislocated and shifting; boundaries are crossed and ‘new ethnicities’ formed (cf. Hall, 1996). Thirdly, the multi-cultural question has contributed to a deconstruction of the liberal-constitutional state and the idea of a homogenous society. The state needs to recognize the growing cultural diversity of its citizens and acknowledge both group rights and individual rights. The state must strike a balance between cultural pluralism and liberal ideas about the individual subject. Hall states that: ‘The double demand for equality and difference appears to outrun our existing political vocabularies’ (Hall, 2000, p. 232).

The focus on culture and identities as situated, multiple, imagined and contingent reflects Hall’s personal and intellectual positioning (Alexander, 2009; Hall, 1986). This positioning also marks his participation in the discussion of multiculturalism in the 1990s and the early 2000s (Parekh, 2000, 2001; Solomos, 2014). Hall is not merely seeking to rescue some of the best parts of British multi-cultural society, he is also trying to re-define the nation and re-imagine what ‘Britishness’ and ‘Englishness’ mean or could mean (Hall, 1999). What distinguishes Hall from the other key theoreticians of multiculturalism is his tendency to emphasize the importance of theorizing these questions. A cultural approach to the multicultural question requires the theorization of the processes constituting identity, gender, class, ethnicity/’race’ and diaspora (Weedon, 2016).

Hall does not deliver any firm answers to the multi-cultural question but he does capture the key dilemma:

How then can the particular and the universal, the claims of both difference and equality, be recognized? This is the dilemma, the conundrum – the multi-cultural question – at the heart of the multi-cultural’s transruptive and reconfigurative impact. It requires us to think beyond the traditional boundaries of the existing political discourses and their ever-ready ‘solutions’. (Hall, 2000, p. 235)

Consequently, there are a number of antagonisms that must be resolved. These antagonisms can be found in the discussion between liberals and communitarians, between the ideals of liberty and equality, and in the reconfiguration of the nation-state.

Theorizing multiculturalism

As pointed out by Stuart Hall, multiculturalism is a floating signifier which is inherently difficult to define. There have been more-or-less successful attempts to replace multiculturalism with other terms, such as cultural diversity or interculturalism (Stokke & Lybæk, 2018). In the public and political debate, multiculturalism has been called a sham and a failed experiment. At the same time, it is easy to see that many of the key questions and challenges presented in the discussion of multiculturalism linger on and still set the agenda for discussions of minorities’ rights, immigration, refugee quotas and integration. Looking closer at the discussions and the theoretical attempts to define multiculturalism in the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century, it is easy to see that we are still having the same discussions and confronting the same ‘problems’.

Hall’s distinction between multi-cultural and multiculturalism can help us to start to disentangle the concepts and to renew the discussion of multiculturalism. These two concepts are, of course, closely tied together but the distinction is worthwhile pursuing to some extent. Whereas multi-cultural points towards the many ‘problems’ of governance societies face when it comes to issues of immigration and minorities/majorities, multiculturalism refers to the strategies and policies used to handle these ‘problems’. Multiculturalism brings us closer to the challenges of theorizing about and defining many of the interlinked concepts, such as collective identities, ethnicity/’race’ and culture. At the core of this theoretical discussion lies the necessity of defining difference and entangling what cultural difference means. Instead of throwing away the concept of multiculturalism, I suggest that we encounter and face the challenges involved in setting the agenda for an updated and contemporary discussion of multiculturalism. First, we will look closer at three theoretical and conceptual challenges. We will then move on to some concluding suggestions about how to proceed with this task.

The first challenge concerns the conceptualization of collective or group identities. Taylor’s twin concepts of recognition/identity primarily refer to social identities/social categories, such as gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc. Modood also stresses the importance of group identities. In contrast to Taylor, Modood also discusses the complexity of collective identities, but he does not take this any further. His focus lies in the interaction between minorities and the majority, with a special emphasis on religion and what he calls moderate secularism. Kymlicka operates with different forms of group identities, such as indigenous people, sub-state national groups and immigrants. In contrast to everyone else, Hall tends to problematize and critically discuss collective identities. In diasporic conditions, people tend to adopt to multiple and often hyphenated positions. Hall’s theoretical position is influenced by a poststructuralist language. Culture is always negotiated and in motion. In Hall’s view, collective identities are by necessity heterogenous and hybrid.

In late modernity, social identities are saturated by contingency, that is, it has become increasingly difficult to use the language of ‘differences’ to talk about identity formations in a pluralistic culture. For example, it is no longer sufficient to use two positions when talking about gender differences – men and women. In the intersections between gender/sexuality, we find an increasing number of ‘new’ identifications and identities. In addition, there are fewer clear demarcations between men and women and more gender-neutral ways of talking about gender practices, in particular within the family. Following this line of thought, multiculturalism does not primarily refer to lining up different parallel ‘cultural groups’ but instead to strike a balance between collective rights – which sometimes need to be addressed and defended – and individual rights to a good life. Treating collective identities as homogenous wholes creates an over-reliance on individuals seen to represent the whole community. According to Chin (2017), this results in simplistic approaches to handling community and collective needs. Chin writes: ‘What a historical perspective makes clear, in short, is that we need to uphold both liberal conceptions of individual freedom and pluralistic communitarianism. Each act as a check on the excess of the other’ (p. 303).

The second challenge concerns the discussion of ‘race’ and ethnicity. In the 1990s, the concept of ethnicity sometimes replaced ‘race’. In the 1990s, Hall and others talked about cultural racism. That is, differences in ethnic identity, tradition and ways of life became more important than genetic and biological forms of racism (Hall, 1992). In his various texts on racism, Hall often used both ‘race’ and ethnicity (Alexander, 2009). For example, he introduced the concept of new ethnicities in the 1990s, where he develops his thoughts on hybrid and complex identities (Hall, 1996). The concept of ‘race’ is quite absent from Modood, Taylor and Kymlicka, whereas it is a key concept in the context of anti-racial and cultural studies texts. ‘Race’ is here often used without the scare quotes, implying ‘the construction of race’. In several of his books, Paul Gilroy has warned of a reification of racial difference in the anti-racist discourse. He also finds traces of the mythic morphology of racial difference in anti-racist expressions and movements (Gilroy, 1998). In a similar way, Nayak (2006) argues for a post-race theory, emphasizing the importance of thinking outside the category of race. He starts his argument by saying: ‘there is no such thing as race’ (p. 411). According to Nayak, race is a fabulous fiction and myth of modernity.

In the Nordic countries, race as a concept is heavily associated with eugenics and biological racism. Voyer and Lund (2020), however, advocates importing American racial reasoning into the Swedish discussion. The authors say that this form of racial reasoning goes beyond essentialism. It decouples race from phenotype and biology and connects it to social structures and the organization of society. Denying the significance of ‘race’ in sociology can be seen as an expression of colour-blindness and is a sign of racism, according to the authors. They write: ‘Acknowledging, naming, and taking account of racial and ethnic divisions can expose processes of social distinction and ranking’ (p. 355). Recently we have also seen how the concept of ‘race’ has become more influential in the Nordic discussion of racism. ‘Race’ is often used in an anti-racist discourse, focusing on racialization and on how people are categorized and devalued based on skin colour. However, ‘race’ is rarely used to distinguish between different ‘races’, for example. This would entail the use of a more biologically based concept, which is – as Gilroy pointed out – sometimes smuggled into the discussion. Using ‘race’ as a point of departure for a critical discussion of racialization is unproblematic but when approaching questionnaires where categories, such as Asian, Black, African or Caribbean, White, and other ethnic groups (for example, Arab) are used, might be problematic.

The third challenge lies in identity politics. At the heart of the multicultural discourse, we find, on the one hand a collective striving for recognition and civil rights. On the other hand, the striving for collective identities sometimes collides with the individual’s need for recognition. Identity politics have historically been associated with social movements, such as the working-class movement, feminism and the struggle for civil rights in the US. Today we often find issues of sexual minorities’ rights and LGBT rights under the heading of identity politics. In addition, one of the most significant developments in this area focuses on religion, secularism and Muslim immigrants’ positions in Europe. Muslims have gradually become more visible, raising claims of citizenship, civil rights and public recognition. Issues of Muslim identity and citizenship have become more problematic since the events of New York (9/11, 2001), Madrid (14/3, 2004), and London (7/7 and 21/7, 2005).

In Europe a religion, Islam, is increasingly becoming linked to violence, terrorism and anti-Western values. In The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism and the Domestic War on Terror (2015), Kundnani has argued that by constructing the concept of pre-crime space, referring to behaviour that is not criminal but deviant and might lead to future crimes, society embraces interventions aimed at this assumed pool of recruitment which are based on a non-proven connection between radical religious beliefs and potential future violence. Radicalization models have encouraged security establishments to believe that intensive surveillance of Muslim groups can prevent future terrorist attacks. Monitoring the pool of potential extremists and terrorists is therefore developed as a counter-terrorist strategy. Kundnani states that community policing, which is often portrayed as a positive strategy to create bonds between the majority society and minorities, often leads to increased monitoring of certain parts of the population. At the heart of the discursive critique, we find strong sentiments of Islamophobia (Güney, 2010; Mares, 2014). Moreover, it should be pointed out that all efforts to profile future terrorist have come up short (Rae, 2012).

Although many European Muslim immigrants identify themselves as Muslims, make demands as Muslims and derive their inspiration from Islam, there are great variations within the Muslim identity. Parekh (2006) argues that for some Muslims, their identity is chosen, for some others, it is externally imposed and for most Muslims, it is a complex mixture of a self-chosen and imposed identity. Parekh further argues that Muslim immigrants, like all other Europeans, derive their identities from an intersection between religion, gender, occupation, citizenship, parental national belonging, etc. He exemplifies this by referring to the different meanings attached to ‘British Muslims’. This could refer to Muslims in Britain, i.e. those Muslims who live in Britain without not feeling any commitment or attachment to the nation-state or the British identity. Rather, they are tied to their religious identity and to their diasporic identities as Muslims. ‘Muslims of Britain’ refers to those who feel loyalty, attachment and belonging to Britain. Finally, ‘Britishized Muslims’ refers to those who embrace a British way of life and national values and attitudes. This group gives rise to a specific British form of Islam. Parekh draws the conclusion that:

So long as European Muslims remain Muslims in Europe, they will continue to arouse fear and anxiety. They need to become Muslims of Europe and hopefully over time even Europeanized Muslims. This requires them to acknowledge and discharge the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship, eschew mindless violence and reassure society of their moral commitment to it. For its part the liberal society should accept Muslims as its equal and legitimate members, cease demonizing and alienating them, and discharge its responsibilities and obligations towards them. (Parekh, 2006, p. 200)

This third challenge of identity politics and religious identities is central to the contemporary discussion of multiculturalism. Whereas Charles Taylor defends secular values and puts liberalism and human rights in opposition to more ‘narrow’ religious interests and needs, Modood argues strongly for a moderate secularism, which means improving the rights of minority faith communities to play a role in the national cultures of the European countries. In times of heightened anxiety and alertness to terrorist attacks, it has become increasingly difficult to theorize about identity politics, religion, and post-secular conditions. Facing the third challenge means approaching the role of religion in society and the changing boundaries between the public and private spheres.

A fourth challenge is raised by issues of the limits of the national space. Transnationalism extends issues of cultural diversity and cultural integration beyond national borders, challenging theories and assumptions on multiculturalism and interculturalism. Kastoryano (2018) argues that:

Transnationalism raises the question of the limits of national public space and extends the concept of cultural integration beyond borders challenging the normative theories of multiculturalism and interculturalism bounded by national societies. Whatever the ideology and objective in the understanding of integration, states are confronted today with the transnational actions of activists who try to bypass states in order to reach a global perspective of their identifications and actions. (Kastoryano, 2018, p. 9)

Transnationalism engenders a sense of global and non-territorial identity, transgressing national boundaries. Today we need to extend the discussion of multiculturalism beyond its focus on the nation-state and to include larger issues of a European identity, cosmopolitanism and the relationship between the global north and global south.

The intention in this article has not been to present any solutions or magic theoretical formulas to resolve the challenges presented. However, instead of falling into the trap of labelling current political trends to characterize and define multiculturalism as a blind alley, the aim has been to reconnect to the existing and solid academic discussion of multiculturalism and to identify possible ways of revitalizing this discussion. In the contemporary political debate multiculturalism has gone from being a floating signifier to becoming a frozen and reified signifier of the impossibility of living with cultural diversity. In order to move forward and re-create a vital discussion of multiculturalism, we need to re-connect to ‘the multicultural question’, that is, to important discussions of such topics as the relationship between particular and universal values, minority rights, democratization processes, equality and the role of religion in Western societies.

Conclusions – a way forward?

Most of us are today living with difference in multi-cultural societies. However, we are also living in a time when multiculturalism is being questioned and nationalism and assimilationism have again spread out and coloured the political debate. Today there is an increasing gap between the dominant ideological and policy frameworks and everyday multiculturalism. Looking closer at the everyday multiculturalism, the daily routines and the un-reflective inter-ethnic encounters, we can find an emergent and positive shared intersubjectivity. For example, Werbner (2013, p. 416) argues:

… despite its apparently tenuous, apolitical invisibility, everyday multiculturalism is an achievement. A cohesive, normative, moral force which resists and transcends fragmentation and division, while allowing for many different identities to be sustained and nourished beneath the surface, in other contexts.

In a somewhat similar manner, Harris (2013) says it is particularly instructive to look closer at how young people today handle this growing gap. Firstly, they have lived their lives in the shadow of a backlash against multiculturalism. The new generations have been marked by dramatic events, such as 9/11, and subsequent terror attacks in European cities. They have, so to say, missed the more optimistic discussions of multiculturalism. Young people have also become targeted by societies’ attempts to teach them tolerance and how to live by difference. Secondly, because they are living in hyper-diversity, young people are the most likely group to embrace multiple cultural identifications and hybridity. This is, however, partly class-bound. Nevertheless, looking at gender identities today, we can see a more pluralistic stance towards difference and in favour of celebrating sexual experimentation.

Thirdly, minoritized young people demand recognition and express criticism in a more overt way than earlier generations. Young people refuse to accept marginalization and instead tend to fight for their rights and entitlement to recognition. Finally, unlike earlier generations, young people are forming their identities within a transnational and global context. Their lives are marked by globalization, heightened individualization, new informationscapes and new ways of approaching communities and collective identities. Harris draws the conclusion that:

These young people offer ways to think beyond the limits of both conventional ethnic multicultural politics and the social cohesion framework in times of hyper-diversity. Indeed, their identity practices and social relations tell us much about not simply the future of multicultural citizenship, but how it is crafted, lived, negotiated and yearned for right now. (Harris, 2013, p. 145)

Without idealizing young people, this analysis of generational changes and transformations of how to live by diversity and difference can help and inspire us to engage with the crucial issues raised by the attack on multiculturalism, and the attempts to save this discourse, and to continue to work with the issue of multiculturalism.

The European political climate today is not in favour of multiculturalism. In many European countries, right-wing parties and the far right have increasingly come to dominate the political agenda and discussion. The political landscape is changing drastically and anti-immigrant politics has gained increasingly strong support. The political agenda is now dominated by questions and debates which were previously found in far-right and neo-Nazi movements. A widespread conspiracy theory that unites the far-right, ethno-nationalists and the neo-Nazis is the claim that white people are being replaced by non-white people in territories that are regarded as being white territories. This replacement is seen as a result of a deliberate policy to extinguish or reduce white people. Migration is not regarded as resulting from individuals’ actions – when faced with poverty, environmental disasters or war – to improve their living conditions by reaching geographical areas which might be a better place to live their lives and raise one’s children. Instead, migration is labelled as a result of anything ranging from a left-liberal ideological dream of multi-cultural societies to the intended genocide of white people by undermining their ability to govern their own territories. These ‘theories’ and assumptions tend to penetrate and permeate the political debate in mainstream politics, making it increasingly more difficult to establish a sound political discussion.

The argument made in this article is simple: we need to reconnect to the academic and theoretical discussion of ‘the multicultural question’. In the theories laid out earlier by Taylor, Modood, Kymlicka, Hall and others, we can find inspiration to renew and revitalize the discussion of how to live in culturally diverse and complex societies. The four challenges presented are crucial to this project. At the heart of this project lie our perceptions and ideas about identity and the role it plays in contemporary societies. Refining, updating and renewing our conceptual tools must be a priority in the coming years. The ways in which we talk about multiculturalism, identity politics, collective identities, ‘race’/ethnicity and culture will affect the way we respond to and engineer multiculturalism in everyday life and the public sphere.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Thomas Roland Johansson

Thomas Roland Johansson is Professor of Pedagogy at the University of Gothenburg. He has written extensively in the field of youth studies, cultural studies and body studies. His recent book (co-authored with Christer Mattsson) is Life Trajectories into and out of Contemporary Neo-Nazism. Becoming and Unbecoming the Hateful Other. London: Routledge, 2019, and Disengagement and Deradicalization from Neo-Nazi Movements: Social Psychological Perspectives, London: Routledge, 2022 (With Christer Mattsson).