Based on an analysis of documents produced by civil society organisations, supplemented by interviews, Thomas Sealy explains how multiculturalism and interculturalism, usually seen as antagonistic approaches, are actually often combined on the ground

Sealy, Thomas

English

LSE Research Online

Debating	difference	and	diversity:	combiningmulticulturalist	and	interculturalist	approaches	tointegrationBased	on	an	analysis	of	documents	produced	by	civil	society	organisations,	supplemented	byinterviews,	Thomas	Sealy	explains	how	multiculturalism	and	interculturalism,	usually	seen	asantagonistic	approaches,	are	actually	often	combined	on	the	ground.In	the	UK,	as	elsewhere	in	Western	Europe,	issues	of	integration	and	social	cohesion	in	relationto	ethno-cultural	minorities	are	never	far	from	the	headlines	or	policy	concerns	in	one	form	oranother.	In	the	last	year,	events	such	as	the	Black	Lives	Matters	protests,	COVID-19,	the	Euros,and	the	upcoming	Queen’s	Platinum	Jubilee,	have	all	prompted	reflection	on	integration.	In	2019	the	governmentpublished	a	new	indicators	of	integration	framework	and	the	term	has	again	been	the	central	concern	of	a	recentreport	by	a	prominent	think	tank,	which	notes	that	integration	is	‘one	of	the	slipperiest	concepts	in	the	politicallexicon’.One	of	the	central	issues	to	thinking	about	integration	is	what	is	to	be	done	about	ethno-cultural	difference?	Is	it	aproblem	to	be	overcome,	a	barrier	to	integration?	Is	it	something	positive,	to	be	embraced	and	celebrated?	Shouldit	be	overlooked	in	favour	of	what	we	all,	as	individuals,	have	in	common,	or	should	it	be	the	ground	we	build	a	moreequitable	sense	of	belonging	from?The	term	integration	can	be	not	just	slippery	but	the	site	of	antagonistic	and	at	times	heated	debate.	These	twoproperties	of	antagonism	and	slipperiness	are	well	exemplified	in	debates	between	two	alternative	camps	on	how	tomanage	and	think	about	integration	and	ethno-cultural	diversity:	multiculturalism	and	interculturalism.	Whereas	theformer	emphasises	respect	for	difference	and	hyphenated	identities,	the	latter	emphasises	contact,	mixing	and	whatis	shared	or	common	against	difference.The	two	have	frequently	butted	heads	in	academic	debates,	with	multiculturalism	under	fire	from	interculturalists	asin	need	of	replacement,	something	reflected	in	political	and	policy	discourse.	For	instance,	the	government’s	2018Integrated	Communities	Strategy	stated	that	‘multiculturalism	has	too	often	encouraged	communities	to	liveseparate	lives	–	reinforcing	distinct	cultural	identities	to	the	detriment	of	efforts	to	draw	attention	to	what	we	have	incommon	–	and	is	defunct’.	Multiculturalists	have	responded	by	pointing	out	how	these	arguments	misrepresent	orcaricature	multiculturalism.			In	a	new	research	project,	PLURISPACE,	we	ask	if	this	antagonism	must	necessarily	be	the	case.	We’ve	found	thatintegration	as	it	exists	in	government	policy	as	well	as	policy	advocacy	from	civil	society	organisations	more	oftencombines	these	two	opponents	in	various	ways,	and	this	is	where	the	slipperiness	comes	in.	Peeling	back	frompolitical	rhetoric	and	academic	theory	debates,	what	might	we	learn	from	the	slipperiness?While	policies	that	are	consistent	with	an	intercultural	position	have	become	central,	through	increased	emphasison	contact	and	mixing,	as	well	in	discourse	around	fundamental	British	values,	the	term	itself	is	found	nowhere	inpolicy	documents	or	parliamentary	debates	themselves	(unlike,	for	example,	in	Spain	or	at	the	EU	level).	Moreover,these	interculturalism	gains	have	not	been	to	the	detriment	of	multicultural	policies,	which	have	also	shown	anincrease	over	the	last	few	decades.	This	begins	to	point	to	types	of	complementarity	between	different	approaches,which	forms	the	focus	of	the	PLURISPACE	project.	But	what	different	forms	does	such	complementarity	take	inpractice?From	an	analysis	of	documents	produced	by	prominent	civil	society	organisations,	supplemented	by	interviews,	wecan	point	to	three	main	types	of	complementary	form	in	which	multiculturalism	and	interculturalism	are	combined	inthe	UK,	reflected	in	alternative	emphases	on	the	idea	of	integration.	The	first	two	represent	what	we	might	call	aprincipled	multiculturalism,	complemented	or	qualified	by	interculturalism	to	different	extents.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Debating difference and diversity: combining multiculturalist and interculturalist approaches to integration Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2022-05-23Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/integration-multiculturalism-interculturalism/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/The	first	variation	is	broadly	multiculturalist	in	emphasis.	It	wants	to	preserve	the	importance	of	difference	betweenethnic,	cultural,	and	faith	communities	whilst	developing	a	sense	of	multicultural	nationhood	that	can	include	thesedifferences.	Integration	is	thought	about	as	relations	between	communities	and	across	difference,	but	which	adds	tothis	the	need	for	contact	and	mixing	between	people	of	different	ethnicities	and	faiths	and	a	simultaneous	emphasison	what	is	held	in	common	if	it	is	to	be	successful.	Here,	integration	is	very	much	a	‘two-way	street’.The	second	variation	represents	a	more	equal	mixing	of	multiculturalism	and	interculturalism.	It	is	more	cautious	ofstronger	statements	about	group	rights	but	with	a	significant	feature;	its	underlying	premises	can	be	said	to	be	moremulticulturalist	than	interculturalist.	That	is,	underpinning	interculturalist	features	is	a	stronger	sense	of	the	need	torecognise	and	respect	difference	as	a	fundamental	way	in	which	equality	is	thought	about.	As	one	report	puts	it:	‘Ifintegration	is	not	about	everybody,	it	is	not	integration‘.	Interculturalist	emphases	from	this	position	are	important,but	bound	to	fail	if	not	substantively	underpinned	by	thicker	multiculturalist	sensibilities	and	policies	when	it	comesto	identifying	and	addressing	discrimination	and	positive	recognition.Across	these	two	positions	features	of	interculturalism	are	seen	as	extremely	important	but	also	as	inadequate	andineffective	if	not	underpinned	by	more	substantive	approaches	to	equality	consistent	with	multiculturalism.A	third	position	is	one	we	might	call	critical	interculturalism.	This	adopts	a	broadly	interculturalist	stance,	but	isqualified	in	significant	ways	(and	ways	that	some	interculturalists	would	reject)	by	multicultural	emphases.	Itemphasises	contact	and	mixing,	and	is	oriented	foremost	around	individual	rights	and	the	centrality	of	ascribing	tofundamental	British	values,	and	of	minority	integration	into	these	values.	It	stresses	general	laws	and	policies	thatapply	to	everybody,	rather	than	differentiated	policies	and	stronger	forms	of	group	recognition.	Yet,	differentexpressions	of	this	broad	position	also	emphasise	the	national	level	as	significant	in	setting	the	tone	for	equalityand	integration;	some	emphasise	that	group	targeted	policies	might	be	necessary	in	order	to	address	patterns	ofdiscrimination	and	disparities	in	policy	areas	such	as	employment,	education	and	so	on,	even	if	they	are	notnecessarily	ideally	desirable	and	one	day	might	not	be	necessary.	We	might	see	this	as	a	kind	of	stop	gapmulticulturalism.Overall,	these	different	forms	of	complementarity	are	suggestive	of	the	important	contestations	and	differencesthere	are	when	it	comes	to	questions	of	what	integration	should	mean	and	look	like.	But	what	they	also	show	is	thatout	of	the	shadows	of	academic	debates	and	political	rhetoric,	syntheses	and	hybrids	are	occurring	on	the	ground,and	this	has	lessons	for	theory	and	politics	alike.	It	also	shows	that	behind	the	rhetoric,	multiculturalism	is	not	onlyalive	but	a	multicultural	sensibility	is	a	significant	feature	of	how	we	should	think	about	equality	and	belonging.____________________About	the	AuthorThomas	Sealy	(@SealyThomas) is	Lecturer in Ethnicity and Race in the School of Sociology,Politics and International Studies at the University of Bristol.			Photo	by	Sharon	McCutcheon	on	Unsplash.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Debating difference and diversity: combining multiculturalist and interculturalist approaches to integration Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2022-05-23Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/integration-multiculturalism-interculturalism/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Debating difference and diversity: combining multiculturalist and interculturalist approaches to integration

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/116318/1/politicsandpolicy_integration_multiculturalism.pdf

Debating difference and diversity: combining multiculturalist and interculturalist approaches to integration

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online