Migration. Multiculturalism. Mobilization - Essay Example

?multiculturalism Migration. Multiculturalism. Mobilization MULTICULTURALISM Migration, Multiculturalism & Mobilization Author’s University Summer 2011 “If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two, they would cut each other's throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.” ~ Voltaire (1694-1778) Introduction Voltaire (quoted above), the French Historian and Philosopher, spoke about the concept of religious diversity centuries ago and reflected a prosperous society as a result of this diversity. Many years, wars and generations later, the world has become a much smaller place especially with the rise of globalization and constant travel of people. The last century on-looked the surfacing of a cluster of social, intellectual and political movements led by diverse factions as the indigenous communities, national minorities, ethno-cultural populations, old and new immigrants, feminists, gay men and women. These inhabitants symbolized distinctive practices, customs, lifestyles, views and ways of life that are different from, often disapproved of, and in varying degrees discouraged and criticized by the prevailing culture of the wider society (Parekh 2000). Ethnic and cultural pluralism that are the foundations of multiculturalism in Western societies, have been a cause of debate and considerable criticism amongst the politics and general public. This essay studies the role multiculturalism has in the socio-political and economical context. Defining Multiculturalism The conception of multiculturalism symbolizes a relatively new approach to elucidate the age-old process of civilizations and re-settlement. Migration and multiculturalism have become critical points in political agendas across the globe. However, before dwelling into the details of political and sociological complexities of multiculturalism, it is important to understand what the term means and review its available definitions. In his book, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Canadian philosopher and multiculturalism researcher Will Kymlicka has discussed upon the conundrum of defining multiculturalism (Kymlicka 1995). He debates that the term multicultural is either too vague, because it clusters multination and poly-ethnic, or is too broad as it can embrace non-ethnic social groups, like the disabled, gays and feminists, etc.  This argument over the coverage of the term stems from the scholarly disagreements over definitions of culture. The following are a number of definitions for “multiculturalism” in peer-reviewed research: “Multiculturalism is a system of beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society.” (Rosado 1996) “ Multiculturalism is the co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviours, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles.” (IFLA 2005) “ Multiculturalism can be defined as the challenging, the dismantling, the remaking of public identities in order to achieve an equality of citizenship that is neither merely individualistic nor premised on assimilation." (Modood 2005) “Multiculturalism is concerned with the representation, not of difference as such, but of cultural identities.” (Henry Louis Gates 1993). It should be noted that despite the fact that the term “cultural identities” is used in defining multiculturalism, the author argues against the inclusion of gender and sexual identities in a culture specific context. Author Dan Rodriguez-Garcia, in his paper on assimilation and multiculturalism, has defined a multiculturalist or pluralist society as “a society based on the respect for and protection of cultural diversity within a framework of shared belonging, as in the cases of Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK,and Canada.” (Rodriguez-Garcia 2010) Migration & the roots of Multiculturalism In Europe, the introduction of the practice of the phrase “multiculturalism” observed a transition in perceiving immigration only as an economic and temporary issue to that of permanent presence of populations (Allievi 2003). However, this transition has not been homogenous accepted across the spectrum of the society. Consistently since few decades, debate has been raging in Europe, more prominent in lieu of euro-zone crisis and fear of terrorism, over the function of multicultural public policies in encouraging religiously motivated extremism, economic competition and financial burden. Despite the fact that this issue has been brought to broad daylight in today’s political agenda, multiculturalism has been rooted in our societies since many centuries. This section ponders upon the role migration has played in forming the multicultural society as we know today. The rise of political and public attention in migration in recent years obliterates the fact that migration and movements in human civilizations were the fundamental factors in colonialism, industrialization and post-modern nation building (Castles 2002) (Archdeacon 1983) (Moch 1995). In the post-World War II period, workforce migration, such as the influx of Turks, Italians, Portuguese in Germany, played a critical role in the development, restructuring and reformation of the industrial economies (Castles & Miller 1998), while involuntary migration was an inevitable consequence of state formation developments and economic changes under environments of competition and neo-colonialism (Zolberg, Suhrke & Aguayo 1989). The public concern towards migration in the early 1990s and its resurgence in the contemporary times has signified a shift in insight, rather than in the real importance of the phenomenon. Migration is plainly a systemic element and an outcome in a broader sense of globalization, it is simply a different form of a systemic function that has existed in assorted guises ever since the inception of the capitalist world market around the sixteenth century. Historically, migrant populations have been embedded into the host societies in a number of ways, in agreement with the historical, political, economical and social characteristics of each country or region including, to a certain extent, how philosophies of national community or belonging have historically been comprehended. Forms of integration of migrant population (discussed in next section) are, hence, quite closely associated with colonial history, the surfacing of nation-states, and the emerging exclusion/inclusion policies on the basis of citizenship. Owning to migration, the increasing ethnic, religious and cultural diversity amongst modern states has added another dimension to what people perceived of citizenship. Some researchers argue that, due to the fact that a majority number of migrants often maintain close ties with the country of their origin, the complete idea of ‘national citizenship’ has become obsolete. Feelings of solidarity towards the nation and common national values, which are ideally the pillars of citizenship, could be affected by the heterogeneity in population. Recent reforms in citizen public policies, such as that in United Kingdom, have reevaluated the citizenship approach by changing the rules and regulations of acquiring naturalized citizenship (language tests, oaths etc.) and modifying the political rhetoric around the matter (public promotion of the value of citizenship, citizenship education in schools etc.). In his publication, ‘Immigration, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism: Exploring the Links’, author Will Kymlicka has metaphorically compared Immigration, citizenship and multiculturalism as a three-legged school where each leg supports the other two. He perceives that in circumstances where one leg is weak, politicians and public become uneasy about the motives and consequences of the other two. Integrating Emigrants with Base Society As mentioned above, different geographies have adopted a number of different ways to integrate or embed migrant population into the host societies. The degree to which migrant population embed and becomes cohesive with the mainstream culture, depends on historical as well as the contemporary political, economical and social environment in the nation-state. The different models of incorporation and integration can distinctively classified into three types: Assimilation, Multiculturalism and (Differential) Exclusion. As a mode of incorporation, Assimilation implies encouraging immigrants to learn the national language and to effusively adopt and adapt to the socio-cultural practices of the receiving community (Castles 2002). This implicates a handover of allegiance from the place of birth to the host country and hence the acceptance of a new national identity. The assimilationist philosophy is established on the notion that uniformity and equality can be realized through complete adoption of the rules, regulations and values of the prevailing society and through the evasion to any considerations of “diversity”, as has been noticed in the case of France. Exemplifying the theory of assimilation, the song 'Farewell to old England for ever' was popular amongst the emigrants leaving for their new destinations like the United States, Canada and Australia (Castles & Davidson 2000). The second mode of incorporation is Multiculturalism. Contrary to assimilation, multiculturalism infers to deserting the theory of homogenous and mono-cultural nations. It conveys acknowledging rights to cultural conservation and community establishment, and connecting these to social equality and security from discrimination. The multiculturalist philosophy is based on the reverence for and protection of cultural diversity within the framework of collective belonging, such as in the cases of Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, and Canada. The third distinct mode of incorporation is Differential Exclusion, which is the other extreme opposite side of assimilation. Differential Exclusion (also referred as the guest worker approach in Europe) implies the acceptance of immigrants only within stringent functional and temporal limits (Schierup, Hansen & Castles 2006). Countries adopting differential exclusion have employed legal and administrative arrangements that though are open to labor migration (to coordinate market economies and corporatist welfare systems) but have strongly discouraged access to citizenship or permanent settlement. The segregationist or exclusion philosophy is characterized by separation between, or disintegration of, ethnic-cultural communities, and prominent predominantly by its restrictive legal framework concerning access to citizenship, based on the ethno-racial criterion of jus sanguinis, as in the cases of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. All three modes of incorporation have been subjected to a number of controversial debates in literature and politics, with the supporters of each group producing their arguments of adoption with the migration issues. All of the above modes of incorporation have their strengths and weaknesses as they identify different ways to integrate policies: legal-political (state), cultural (nation) and socioeconomic (market). Assimilationism and Multiculturalism: Issues, Critiques and Misconceptions At the advent of the twenty-first century, phenomenon such as globalization is deteriorating all the means of controlling differences based on territoriality. With rising mobility; growth of temporary, cyclical and recurring migrations; cheap and easy travel; continuous communication with the help of cutting-edge technologies: people have started questioning the idea of belonging to just one nation-state. These transformations have led to political debates on the significance of multiculturalism, transnationalism and transnational communities (those who are not attached to a specific geography) as new modes of migrant belonging. In such dynamic times, coupled with the fears caused by economic crisis, people have gone back and forth on their opinions of Assimilationism and Multiculturalism. It is important to realize that one’s critique of such modes of incorporation depends heavily on one’s political left-right orientation, social class standing, degree of religiosity and generational level. Assimilation had been the predominant mode of incorporation in many immigration nation-states, including the UK, the US, and Canada until the 1960s, and is still prevalent in some European countries, notably France. Post-1960s, academics delegitimated assimilation as either just a policy or an impractical notion. Today, France can be considered as quintessential example of Assimilation model and has often come under public critique for the lack of a more complex approach towards integration. The country’s assimilistic policies have been in news because of the recent Burqa ban (disallowing Muslim women to wear religious scarves) and the hijab debate in 1989. Critics of assimilation argue that the model degrades minority cultures, beliefs and languages, hence, contradicting the egalitarian principles of diversity and freedom of choice (Castles et al. 2002). Countries where assimilation is practiced presume that the host society is prepared to share rights and opportunities with assimilating minorities. A study conducted in France indicated that there is a considerable “social distance” between the French and other ethnic groups particularly Maghrebian Arabs and African blacks (Lambert et al. 1990). Scholarly and political opponents of the theory emphasize that assimilation is grounded on an individualistic society model (mono society) and thereby completely ignores the critical prominence of family and community in social life. Furthermore, it provides very little consideration to the possibility of diverse paths followed by immigrants. Since 1960, United Kingdom has adopted a more pluralistic approach i.e. of multiculturalism in its practice to adopt diversity. However, the economic crisis and rising right-wing political rhetoric has questioned the multiculturalism audacity. The issue that Britain faces now is that being too homogenous and too diverse, the costs associated with assimilating the minority population exceed its benefits and as a result no one assimilates. Multiculturalism on the other hand, though seemingly fair with successful applications in Canada, Australia and United States, has also become a cause of debate for leaders in Western European powers. Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Buchanan 2011). "State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's current Prime Minister David Cameron. French President, Nicholas Sarkozy and Spain’s ex-prime minister Jose Maria Aznar also viewed multiculturalism as a “clear failure” as it divides and debilitates Western societies. A major argument against multiculturalism is that by calling a nation ‘multicultural’, implies that its traditional heritage and culture should not be given its due pride of place and that the emerging minority cultures are equally central to its identity. This is particularly hurtful to once-upon-a-time imperial power Britain that over centuries had evolved a distinct culture integrally tied up with its national identity. The “cultural mosaic” that multicultural theories propagate also promotes systems of essentialism and seclusion to the disadvantage of central principles of equality and societal cohesion. Additionally, multiculturalism can further trigger inequality by overstepping on the individual rights of people within a cultural group, namely women, who tend to be a vulnerable target to discriminatory practices (Rodriguez-Garcia 2010). The recent debate on the multiculturalist perspective has been exclusively directed towards its implied essentialism. In case of Britain, this counterattack against multiculturalism and diversity in general, has not only come from the conservative right, but also and most importantly from the liberal left who are now reasoning that the UK is too diverse; since pluralism weakens cohesion and solidarity; multiculturalism has the potential to lead to autonomist struggles; a fiercer challenge to British national values. Across Europe, there is a universal acknowledgment that multiculturalism has failed in its own terms, establishing ghettos and cutting off vulnerable populations such as immigrant women, in particular, from complete involvement in a free society. Is there anything wrong with Multiculturalism? As one can judge from the descriptions of different modes of incorporation, no particular model is favorable to all sects of the society. Of all the different theories, there do exist different obvious benefits of practicing multi-culturalism such as perceived equality between majorities and minorities, a broader view of the world forms etc. However, critics of multiculturalism have recognized a number of problems with the concept such as: Divisive: As Multiculturalism conserves the cultural beliefs and languages of minorities it may not have a uniting effect on nation as a whole. It has the potential to keep citizens apart such as “a Muslim community”, “a Sikh community”, and “a Bangladeshi community” etc. and may foster racism and cultural cluster solidarity at the expense of wider social involvement. Ironic to the fact that multiculturalism advocates unification in diversity, it also brings in the feeling of “us” vs. “them”. Regressive. Another aspect that can be considered ‘wrong’ about Multiculturalism is that it may protect certain backward practices in other cultures in the pretext of freedom of choice such as human rights for women, religious extremism, gender bias in providing education and support exploitation and inequality. By declining to engage with the inherent structural inequalities in a capitalist market, the multicultural philosophy ends up being inappropriate or regressive. Moreover, the authentic entitlements of minority ethnic groups may be overlooked or sidetracked by people who claim that there exists equality and harmony. Symbol. The multiculturalism principles and public policies could be symbolic in articulating perfect yet theoretical ideals, but they can have a limiting practical value. Resources provided or spent on multiculturalism may be wrongly devoted to symbolic aspects of culture or rhetoric, such as ethnic lifestyle, and may ignore the realistic issues of the society such as racism, discrimination, and inequality faced by people in minority cultures. This symbolic representation of multiculturalism also negates the importance of nation-state identity. Impractical. Capitalism and social hierarchy that are integral sociological concepts of our existence result in a number of inequalities, which are not usually dealt with multicultural governance and public policies. As a matter of fact, these policies have an inverse effect by containing minority rights. Top-down. As exemplified by popular multiculturalist societies in US, Canada etc. the philosophy of pluralism is driven from the top and not from grass roots or cross-culturalism. Writer, Peter Lamborn Wilson in his article, “Against Multiculturalism” pointed out that a localized decentralized action is essential (Wilson 2004). In wake of Sept 11 and other terrorist attacks in recent years, political discussion has been turned to the a number of speci?c challenges of “multiculturalism” presented to minority population especially Muslims as Islamophobia has been spreading within the advanced industrial economies of Britain, United States, Canada, France and even high tolerance nation: Netherlands. Author Grillo in his study of cross-cultural dynamics in a multiculturalism context has outlined six commonly identified problems with multicultural theory and practice. These are (1) multiculturalism’s implicit essentialism; (2) the system of classification, which reinforces it; (3) the overall shape that multicultural politics takes; (4) the religious formalities that ethnic minorities are often associated with; (5) the disguising of race (and social class) that it appears to be present; and (6) the assault on the ‘collective core’ that it represents (Grillo 1998). Conclusion Multiculturalism is at the hearth of a fierce debate. Right from the meaning of the term, to defining the scope of what it symbolizes, to its justified existence in the society, Multiculturalism, as the name represents, is as plural as it can be. Macro-economic factors such as globalized markets and economies, rising influence of information technologies has led to high movement of migrant population around the world. This concept, however not new, has drawn upon changes in established industrialized states that have responded in different measures – assimilation or the republican method, differential exclusion and multiculturalism or pluralism. Despite the fact that multiculturalism aims to unite different sects of the society and allows them to breed together, the philosophy has a number of flaws such as superficial harmony, protection of obsolete and unjust ideas, threat to national identity or an overall collapse of a monolithic culture. Bibliography Allievi, S 2003, 'Multiculturalism in Europe', Conference Report, St Anthony’s College and Princeton University. Archdeacon, T 1983, Becoming American: An Ethnic History, New York: The Free Press, New York. Buchanan, P 2011, Will Multiculturalism End Europe?, viewed 23 May 2011, . Castles, S 2002, 'Migration and Community Formation under Conditions of Globalization', International Migration Review, vol 36, no. 4, pp. 1143-1168. Castles, S & Davidson, A 2000, Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging, Macmillan, London. Castles, S, Korac, M, Vasta, E & Vertovec, S 2002, 'Integration: Mapping the Field', Project Report, Centre for Migration and policy research and refuge studies centre, University of Oxford, Immigration Research and Statistics Service, London. Castles, S & Miller, MJ 1998, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World, 2nd edn, Macmillan, London. Grillo, R 1998, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective, Clarendon, Oxford. IFLA 2005, Defining “Multiculturalism”, viewed 22 May 2011, . Henry Louis Gates, J 1993, 'Beyond the Culture Wars: Identities in Dialogue', Profession, pp. 6-11. Kymlicka, W 1995, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford University Press. Lambert, WE, Moghaddam, FM, Sorin, J & Sorin, S 1990, 'Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism: Views from a Community in France', Sociological Forum, vol 5, no. 3, pp. 387-411. Moch, LP 1995, 'Moving Europeans: Historical Migration Practices in Western Europe', in R Cohen (ed.), The Cambridge Survey of World Migration, Cambridge Uniersity Press, Cambridge. Modood, T 2005, Remaking multiculturalism after 7/7 , viewed 22 May 2011, . Parekh, BC 2000, Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory, Macmillian Press Ltd., London, UK. Schierup, C-U, Hansen, P & Castles, S 2006, Migration, citizenship, and the European welfare state: a European dilemma , Oxford University Press, London. Rodriguez-Garcia, D 2010, 'Beyond Assimilation and Multiculturalism: A Critical Review of the Debate on Managing Diversity', Int. Migration & Integration, vol 11, pp. 251-271. Rosado, C 1996, Toward a Definition of Multiculturalism, viewed 22 May 2011, . Wilson, PL 2004, AGAINST MULTICULTURALISM "Let n flowers bloom", viewed 23 May 2011, . Zolberg, AR, Suhrke, A & Aguayo, S 1989, Escape from Violence, Oxford University Press, New York. Read More