Article Summary of The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accomodation in diverse societies - Kymlicka - 2010

Ideas about the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity have been changing worldwide over the past 40 years. The common way to describe these changes is through the concept of "multiculturalism." It has become a widely invoked narrative to explain the evolution of debates about diversity. However, there is a consensus that we are now in a post-multicultural era, although there is disagreement about what comes after multiculturalism.

The goal of the article is to explore and critique this main narrative of the rise and fall of multiculturalism and propose an alternative framework for thinking about the choices we face. They argue that the rise and fall of multiculturalism have been uneven processes, varying depending on the issue and the country involved. To identify a more sustainable model for accommodating diversity, it is crucial to understand these variations.

The main narrative generally states the following points:

1. From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, there was a trend across western democracies towards increased recognition and accommodation of diversity through multiculturalism policies and minority rights.
2. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a retreat from multiculturalism and a reassertion of ideas of nation-building, common values, and unity.
3. This retreat is driven by fears among the majority group that diversity accommodation threatens their way of life. It is also influenced by the belief among the center-left that multiculturalism has failed to address the underlying sources of social, economic, and political exclusion faced by minorities.
4. The center-left has shifted to a discourse emphasizing integration, social cohesion, common values, and shared citizenship.
5. This new approach, often referred to as "post-multiculturalism," seeks to develop a more inclusive national identity while avoiding the oppressive reassertion of nationalist ideologies.

This main narrative is misleading in some respects. It mischaracterizes the nature of multiculturalism experiments, exaggerates the extent of their abandonment, and misidentifies their genuine difficulties and limitations. The article aims to provide a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities related to accommodating diversity.

Furthermore, the implications of this debate for international organizations like UNESCO will be discussed, highlighting the need to reassess and adjust their actions based on a more accurate understanding of multiculturalism and its evolution.

What is multiculturalism?

In much of the post-multiculturalism literature, multiculturalism is portrayed as a celebration of ethno-cultural diversity, focusing on customs, traditions, music, and cuisine of different groups.

This view, known as the 3S model (the 3 s's of samosas, steel drums, and saris), is criticized for neglecting issues of economic and political inequality, trivializing cultural differences, and reinforcing power inequalities within minority groups. Post-multiculturalists argue for a shift towards models of citizenship that prioritize political participation, economic opportunities, human rights, individual freedom, inclusive national identities, and cultural change.

However, this critique may not accurately represent the reality of multiculturalism as a set of public policies aimed at redefining the relationship between minorities and the state through anti-discrimination measures, recognition of rights, and empowerment of marginalized groups. Multiculturalism emerged in the late 1960s as part of a larger human rights revolution and has evolved in response to historical transformations and struggles for equality and inclusion. It encompasses various forms of empowerment for indigenous peoples, power-sharing for national minorities, and integration policies for immigrant groups, all aimed at creating fairer and more inclusive democratic societies.

What is the retreat from multiculturalism?

The fall of multiculturalism has been exaggerated. Multiculturalism remains strong for indigenous peoples and national minorities, with increasing recognition and rights. However, there has been a backlash against multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups in some Western democracies. The controversy surrounding immigrant multiculturalism is specific to immigration and not a rejection of multicultural citizenship in general. The fate of immigrant multiculturalism varies across countries, with uneven advances and retreats. The post-multiculturalists' narrative is overstated and misdiagnosed. Multicultural citizenship can be successful in promoting citizenization, but its effectiveness depends on specific contexts. Exploring why multicultural citizenship works in some situations and not others is crucial for understanding its potential in diverse societies.

What is the solution to a successful multicultural citizenship?

A successful multicultural citizenship requires certain preconditions. Two key factors are identified: desecuritization of state-minority relations and the existence of a human rights consensus.

Desecuritization refers to the absence of state insecurity and fear of minority collaboration with external enemies. In Western democracies, the fear of minority collaboration with neighboring enemies is largely non-existent. This is because Western states no longer have neighboring enemies who might invade them. As a result, minority groups are seen as normal participants in democratic politics, rather than potential threats to state security.

The existence of a human rights consensus is another crucial precondition. States are unlikely to accept minority self-government if they fear it will lead to local tyranny within a broader democratic state. In Western democracies, there is a deep consensus across ethnic lines on basic values of liberal democracy and human rights. Minority self-government operates within the framework of liberal-democratic constitutionalism, ensuring the protection of individual rights. The consensus on liberal-democratic values reduces the fear that minority autonomy will harm the rights of non-members.

However, these preconditions are not always present, particularly in relation to certain immigrant groups. In some cases, recent Muslim immigrants have been perceived as disloyal and illiberal, leading to a backlash against multiculturalism. Factors such as concerns about security, economic burdens, and racial prejudice contribute to this backlash.

Nevertheless, multiculturalism remains necessary for democratic citizenship. While there may be challenges and risks involved, the recognition and accommodation of ethno-cultural diversity align with public values, constitutional norms, and human rights principles. Without proactive policies to promote understanding and respect, the rejection of multiculturalism can lead to the marginalization and permanent opposition of immigrant groups.

In conclusion, while the future of multiculturalism may face obstacles, it is an important framework for democratic citizenship, particularly in managing the risks and complexities of immigrant integration.

What are the implications for international organisations?

If the analyses of this article is correct, it has implications for how international organizations like UNESCO approach multiculturalism. On one hand, the analysis justifies IOs promoting multiculturalism based on its connection to human rights. However, there are challenges in implementing multicultural citizenship, especially in regions lacking regional security and strong human rights protections. In such cases, attempting to transplant western models of multiculturalism may worsen relations and undermine democratic citizenship. Caution is necessary in this area, as our understanding of the preconditions for multicultural citizenship is limited. IOs should not abandon promoting multiculturalism but should consider two important changes: looking beyond best practices and examining the preconditions that enable success, and distinguishing between short-term feasibility and long-term desirability. IOs need to identify viable models and conditions for multiculturalism and work towards establishing those conditions. Current efforts often neglect this issue and lack a systematic theory of the conditions and sequencing of multiculturalism. Shifting to post-multiculturalism models does not solve the problem; the focus should be on addressing the lack of attention to implementation conditions in both multiculturalism and post-multiculturalism approaches.