Multiculturalism and the Fetishism of Difference

in Peter A. Hall and Michèle Lamont (eds) Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 99-125.

Race, Gender, and Class, 1995

This paper sketches a brief account of multiculturalism in order to distinguish it from other positions that have been under attack recently. Following this, we address two prevalent and diametrically opposed criticisms of multiculturalism, namely, that multiculturalism is relativistic, on the one hand, and that it is absolutist, on the other. Both of these criticisms, we argue, simply mask liberal democratic theory's myth- begotten attempt to resolve the tension between the one and the many. Multiculturalism challenges the myths of meritocracy and abstract individualism which underlie liberalism; properly understood, it evades the criticisms often hurled at it.

Patterns of Prejudice, 1998

Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto that the 'bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization.' (Marx 1848: 16) And indeed, the world became more interconnected than ever. This globalization, especially after the European decolonization in the postwar period, allowed for multiculturalist societies to come into existence in Western Europe. The internal diversity of populations in Western European countries begins to resemble its multicultural TransAtlantic counterpart. Labor and capital moving from one hemisphere to the other is still increasing. The internal diversity of nation-states is increasing as well. This is partly because there is an economic stimulus for migration of labor within capitalism. Cheap labor is economically rational for corporations, so that capitalist countries are constantly expanding. (Streeck 2012: 4-5, 20) Multiculturalism is a situation wherein multiple cultures are equal by law so that not one culture has an absolute cultural dominance over others. 1) This multiculturalist reality resulted in a situation where new problems occurred. 2) These problems will be the subject of this paper. Welfare State Capitalism (WSC) describes how many Western European countries organized their market economies. 3) In this paper I shall explain WSC and claim that WSC is an old system within a new multicultural reality. The problems that come with it show that adaptation of this economic system is necessary.

Comparative Migration Studies, Vol. 3/1 (2015)

In the postwar period, projects of social justice have often drawn upon ideas of national solidarity, calling upon shared national identities to mobilize support for the welfare state. Several commentators have argued that increasing immigration, and the multiculturalism policies it often gives rise to, weaken this sense of national solidarity. This creates a potential "progressive's dilemma", forcing a choice between solidarity and diversity. My aim in this paper is two-fold: first, to argue for the importance of national solidarity as a progressive political resource; and second, to discuss how it can be reconciled with support for immigration and multiculturalism. I will try to identify the prospects for a multicultural national solidaritya multicultural welfare state, if you willand to contrast it with the two obvious alternatives: a neoliberal multiculturalism that champions mobility and diversity at the expense of national solidarity; and a welfare chauvinism that champions national solidarity at the expense of immigrants and minorities.

Against popular recourse to mythologies of liberal multicultural tolerance and diversity in Australia, I contend in this paper that contemporary multiculturalism, having been largely co-opted and transformed in the ongoing neoliberalisation of the Australian political economy, in fact (re)produces already-existing and novel mechanisms of racial exclusion. This contention is primarily informed by the influential theoretical work of David Theo Goldberg on ‘racial neoliberalism’, a concept which seeks to trace how the neoliberal state has increasingly sought to ‘protect and expand the freedom of flows of capital, goods, and services, and more recently of information’ whilst simultaneously being ‘decidedly circumspect about freedom of movement for multitudes of people’ (2009). In building the evidence for this contention, I address one key question: how has multiculturalism been instrumentalised in the pursuit of maintaining a ‘competitive edge’ in the global market? In response to this question, I argue that neoliberal multiculturalism is thoroughly engaged in the business of shaping flows of people in the interests of capital primarily by privileging migrants that can be expected to serve the interests of capital as ‘economic inputs and dispensable components of production’ (Walsh, 2014). This, I contend, necessarily implies the reproduction and innovation of modes of exclusion and discipline of those that challenge the functionalities of neoliberal multiculturalism.

Constellations, 1998

Charles Taylor's influential essay, "The Politics of Recognition" has helped to solidify the view that recognition is central to multiculturalism. 2 Taylor's lasting contribution is to provide a plausible philosophical underpinning for a human need to be recognized in one's distinctness especially (as he focuses in his essay) on cultural distinctness. Taylor sometimes connects recognition to two other ideas-value, and equality. I will argue that Taylor's account of these connections is confused, and especially that the concept of "equality" is misplaced in the realm of culture. It is appropriate, however, as a form of recognition directed toward human beings not in their distinctness but in their shared humanity and equal citizenship. While Taylor initially credits this form of recognition, by the end of the essay, recognition has lost its link to the equality of common humanity and has gotten confined to the domain of distinctiveness. In her essay, "Recognition and Redistribution," Nancy Fraser never loses sight of equality as a primary goal of recognition as it is discussed within multiculturalist discourse; in this way she provides a vital antidote to Taylor's view. 3 At the same time, Fraser, I will argue, does lose sight of precisely what gives Taylor's essay its canonical place in the literature-the human need for a recognition of distinctness, apart from its connection to social, political, and economic equality. "Multiculturalism" is a contested term. I will include within its reach opposition to racism though some discussions distinguish racial justice concerns from multiculturalism. The character of the groups we think of as "cultures" in the context of multiculturalism, especially within the United States-African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans-are intimately bound up with the racial history of the United States and the racist treatment of these groups. In fact, these groups are often thought of as "racial" groups. (David Hollinger's felicitous term "ethno-racial groups" preserves this duality. 4) Hence the grounds for a particularly intimate connection between culture and race within the ethical foundations of multiculturalism. To keep my discussion within a manageable purview, I will not focus on the wider range of groups and forms of discrimination-gender, age, sexual orientation, and the like-that are often also considered within "multiculturalism." I argued in an earlier work that Taylor fails to articulate opposition to racism

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2011

In this article, I address the impact of neoliberalism and the attendant techniques of financialization on multiculturalism in Canada through ethnographic research at a non-profit, multicultural heritage institution. I consider how the workers at this non-profit, maintained their solidaristic, pre-neoliberal conception of multiculturalism even as they experimented with a sociality dominated by market exchange. Even as worker subjectivity was transformed at the institution by dramatic budget cuts and the necessity for project-based contracts, ‘volunteerism’, entrepreneurialism, and flexibility, neoliberal discourse also opened new imaginative possibilities for the MHSO. Through extensive community networks the organization has been able to survive, if precariously, without dramatic changes to its pre-neoliberal programming which asserts a social democratic, pluralist ethos. Therefore, in this article, I argue we need to attend to the limits of neoliberal effects on the situated and historically distinctive way multiculturalism has been put into practice around the world.

As multiculturalism in the United Kingdom passes to a 'post' phase of existence, at least in academic and political discourse, it is important to consider the lingering impact of over fifty years of its presence in the form of Race Relations and integration measures. This article aims at a critical reassessment of the overarching strategies that have developed over the last half-century in relation to the integration of immigrants by putting the legacy of British multiculturalism into a firm historical and socio-political context; by marrying immigration and integration policies with normative models of integration in the hope of drawing a certain causality between them; and finally by highlighting the changes that have taken shape amidst the continuity of certain shared principles or frames of reference. The first part of the article looks at immigration and integration policies in Britain through a historical perspective; the second section delves into the concept of integration itself and its complex manifestations in British politics and policies; finally, a critical review of the development of these policies and their 21 st century manifestations and outcomes are discussed in the third section. The analysis shows that the United Kingdom has, over the last decade, seen an ever-stronger intertwining of immigration and integration policies towards a robust civic integration approach, made evident in the introduction of citizenship and language testing schemes and strict preconditions on entry. Meanwhile, the turn in anti-discrimination legislation has been rather subtler. It has extended its reach to other areas of inequality, focusing on more pressing, or less contentious minority group support, such as women and LGBT rights, whilst retaining a measure of ethnic and national minority protection.