essay on multiculturalism

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Multiculturalism as a challenge to traditional liberalism

Multiculturalism’s impact on education.

• Challenges to multiculturalism
• Multicultural politics
• What is democracy?
• Where was democracy first practiced?
• How is democracy better than other forms of government?
• Why does democracy need education?
• Where does the word fascism come from?

multiculturalism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Foreign Policy Research Institute - Multiculturalism in World History
• CORE - Multiculturalism as a Central Concept of Multiethnic and Polycultural Society Studies
• Open Library Publishing Platform - Classroom Practice in 2022 - Multiculturalism in the Classroom is the Gateway to a Richer Learning Environment
• Social Sciences Libretexts - Multiculturalism
• BCcampus Open Publishing - Introduction to Human Resource Management – First Canadian Edition - Diversity and Multiculturalism
• CALS Encyclopedia of Arkansas - Multiculturalism
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Multiculturalism
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Multiculturalism and interculturalism: redefining nationhood and solidarity
• Academia - Multiculturalism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Multiculturalism
• Table Of Contents

multiculturalism , the view that cultures , races , and ethnicities , particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture .

That acknowledgment can take the forms of recognition of contributions to the cultural life of the political community as a whole, a demand for special protection under the law for certain cultural groups, or autonomous rights of governance for certain cultures; identity politics may be tied to each of these actions. Multiculturalism is both a response to the fact of cultural pluralism in modern democracies and a way of compensating cultural groups for past exclusion, discrimination , and oppression. Most modern democracies comprise members with diverse cultural viewpoints, practices, and contributions. Many minority cultural groups have experienced exclusion or the denigration of their contributions and identities in the past. Multiculturalism seeks the inclusion of the views and contributions of diverse members of society while maintaining respect for their differences and withholding the demand for their assimilation into the dominant culture.

Multiculturalism stands as a challenge to liberal democracy . In liberal democracies, all citizens should be treated equally under the law by abstracting the common identity of “citizen” from the real social, cultural, political, and economic positions and identities of real members of society. That leads to a tendency to homogenize the collective of citizens and assume a common political culture that all participate in. However, that abstract view ignores other politically salient features of the identities of political subjects that exceed the category of citizen, such as race, religion, class, and sex. Although claiming the formal equality of citizens, the liberal democratic view tends to underemphasize ways in which citizens are not in fact equal in society. Rather than embracing the traditional liberal image of the melting pot into which people of different cultures are assimilated into a unified national culture, multiculturalism generally holds the image of a tossed salad to be more appropriate. Although being an integral and recognizable part of the whole, diverse members of society can maintain their particular identities while residing in the collective.

Some more radical multicultural theorists have claimed that some cultural groups need more than recognition to ensure the integrity and maintenance of their distinct identities and contributions. In addition to individual equal rights, some have advocated for special group rights and autonomous governance for certain cultural groups. Because the continued existence of protected minority cultures ultimately contributes to the good of all and the enrichment of the dominant culture, those theorists have argued that the preserving of cultures that cannot withstand the pressures to assimilate into a dominant culture can be given preference over the usual norm of equal rights for all.

Some examples of how multiculturalism has affected the social and political spheres are found in revisions of curricula , particularly in Europe and North America , and the expansion of the Western literary and other canons that began during the last quarter of the 20th century. Curricula from the elementary to the university levels were revised and expanded to include the contributions of minority and neglected cultural groups. That revision was designed to correct what is perceived to be a falsely Eurocentric perspective that overemphasizes the contributions of white European colonial powers and underemphasizes the contributions made by indigenous people and people of colour. In addition to that correction, the contributions that cultural groups have made in a variety of fields have been added to curricula to give special recognition for contributions that were previously ignored. The establishment of African American History Month , National Hispanic Heritage Month , and Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the United States is an example of the movement. The addition of works by members of minority cultural groups to the canons of literary, historical, philosophical, and artistic works further reflects the desire to recognize and include multicultural contributions to the broader culture as a whole.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Multiculturalism Essay | Multiculturalism and Its Influence and Benefits on Society

October 18, 2021 by Prasanna

Multiculturalism Essay: The term multiculturalism refers to the cohabitation of different ethnic, racial, religious and language groups. In any culture, there are always differences in social backgrounds, religious affiliations, ethnicities, and socioeconomic factors. These differences are what make a culture unique.

The term multiculturalism has shifted in meaning over time. It was first used to describe the coexistence of different cultures within a society. Now it is used to describe government policies that support diversity among different ethnic and social groups. This essay will explore the various definitions, arguments for and against multiculturalism. The essay will also look at what multiculturalism means in its wider sense, how it has developed over time and its impact on people’s lives.

You can also find more  Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

The Flaw in the Multiculturalism Argument

Multiculturalism has been a hotly debated topic in recent years. Some argue that it is the only way to live in harmony with one another, and also promote positivity among groups because it creates opportunities for people of different backgrounds to be able to live and work together.

Others may disagree with this notion, believing that because of multiculturalism, there is an influx of people, resulting in a society that has become more stratified and fragmented.

The idea of multiculturalism in the U.S. is not one that was established in recent times, but rather has roots in the founding of America when immigrants arrived to the U.S. from all over the world, speaking different languages and bringing with them different customs and traditions. Similarly, India is also a multicultural nation that celebrates holidays and festivals of various religions. This can be attributed to the country’s long and eventful history.

Critique of a Multicultural Society

In a multicultural society, members of various cultures and ethnicities are able to live side by side and share their culture with one another. However, some say that multicultural society is a utopia and does not exist in reality. Moreover, a few pressing problems exist in multicultural interaction. One of the most notable problems is the consequence of the “melting pot effect” – where people from different cultures are randomly intermingled without any regard to their cultural needs or preferences. This can lead to resentment among minority groups, identity crises, and social unrest.

Another big problem is the “divide-and-conquer” phenomenon, which means that people are split according to their ethnic background without regard for equality among all races. This divides people into individual groups of common race rather than forming a united society that can work together to solve a problem. Other pressing issues include the following:

The self-esteem of minority group members are often lower as a result of living in a society with a majority population and also due to certain oppressive norms of society. Instances where the minority group members are treated unfairly because of their race or gender can also lead to low self-esteem.

Minority groups are often discriminated against in organizations, schools, and businesses. Moreover, the average salaries among minority groups are lower in comparison to majority groups. For example, an African-American man in Georgia earns $5400 less than a White man; while Native Americans earn $3200 less than Whites.

Minority groups may find it difficult to find employment. This is because many people are biased against minorities and typically only hire people that they see as “being like them.” To combat this, awareness about diversity in the workplace and other social institutions should be created.

Minority groups often lack the education and skills that are necessary for employment. Too often, minority groups in low-income areas are given less opportunity than their majority counterparts because they lack the education and skills needed to find employment. Many of them cannot afford to take college classes or get vocational training because of the time and money it takes away from their families. This is a significant issue, especially in the current economy where jobs are scarce.

How Multiculturalism Impacts Ourselves & Others in the World

We tend to be more tolerant of people who share our culture. We look for similarities and other commonalities. In other words, it is easier to interact with someone like ourselves – or individuals who share our ethnic values and background. Though this is wrong, we are less likely to see the difference in another person if they also come from our culture, and this has an impact on how we view them. The less we know about a person, the more we rely on our own culture to understand them. This tendency is called the in-group bias and it influences how we see other people in many ways. It can lead to people having inordinate expectations of how someone will behave, and it can also lead to cases of prejudice and discrimination.

Cultural Diversity and its Importance

Cultural diversity is the difference in practices, traditions, or other aspects of the culture of the people in a society. It can be found across the world and is important because it gives people different perspectives of the world. Culture is a powerful idea – it is an ongoing process that has adapted to the ever-changing world. It’s something that influences nearly every aspect of our lives. Culture is also the main force behind shaping people’s identity. It helps people understand how they fit into society and provides them with the opportunity to explore their sense of belongingness. The most important aspect of culture is the influence it has on people’s behavior. Due to globalization, cultures are now more intertwined than ever before. This has caused certain values to change, which can lead to misunderstanding or conflict. For example, one culture may view the act of wearing revealing clothing as desirable and another may see it as inappropriate.

What are the Benefits of a Multicultural Society?

The benefits of multiculturalism are numerous. It is believed that a society in which people from different cultures interact with each other will be more creative and innovative. Multiculturalism also means a better understanding of the world, and having the freedom to choose or express oneself without any cultural restrictions.

However, there are also negative perceptions of multiculturalism. For example, some people might not be happy with the way their country has changed and they may feel like their culture is under threat. Multicultural societies can also create tensions between communities because different groups often live in relative segregation from each other. However, all these can easily overcome by:

Recognizing that different cultures exist: Humans are defined by their cultures, so it’s crucial to recognize that there are many different cultural identities. Being aware of cultural differences will help one to build relationships with people from various backgrounds, which can lead to greater understanding. Sharing stories about other cultures and coming together as a community is one way of eliminating misconceptions and increasing understanding.

Recognizing that different cultures have different values: The world is more diverse than ever, and the values of various cultures are different. It is important to be mindful of these differences when working or interacting with people of other cultures.

Respecting the Values of different cultures: As the world becomes more interconnected, it is important to be cognizant of different cultures and ways of life. This can be done by recognizing that each culture has unique norms and values. If these different cultures are respected, then people will not feel marginalized or isolated by policies enacted in their country.

Encouraging people to learn about other cultures: People often think about cultures as being separated and distinct from each other, but the reality is that there is a lot of cross-cultural sharing. Learning about other cultures can provide an enriching experience and will lead to more understanding and empathy.

FAQ’s on Multiculturalism Essay

Question 1. What are some examples of multiculturalism?

Answer: Multiculturalism can be defined as the celebration and acceptance of diversity. This includes cultures, languages, religion, and ethnicity. Turkish-Germans, Indian-Americans or Chinese-Canadians are just a few of the many multicultural identities.

Question 2. What are the characteristics of multiculturalism?

Answer: Multiculturalism is the idea that the cultures of different peoples and ethnic groups should be preserved and that people should be free to hold on to their cultural heritage.

Question 3. What are the benefits of multiculturalism?

Answer: Multiculturalism is the coexistence, interaction and integration of different cultures. It is a global phenomenon and has been around for centuries. The benefits of multiculturalism include:

• It promotes diversity
• It stimulates creativity
• It provides alternative perspectives
• It broadens the minds of people.
• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Multiculturalism

The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy reflects a debate about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural diversity based on ethnic, national, and religious differences. The term “multicultural” is often used as a descriptive term to characterize the fact of diversity in a society, but in what follows, the focus is on multiculturalism as a normative ideal in the context of Western liberal democratic societies. While the term has come to encompass a variety of normative claims and goals, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism find common ground in rejecting the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture. Instead, proponents of multiculturalism endorse an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants.

Modern states are organized around the language and culture of the dominant groups that have historically constituted them. As a result, members of minority cultural groups face barriers in pursuing their social practices in ways that members of dominant groups do not. Some theorists argue for tolerating minority groups by leaving them free of state interference (Kukathas 1995, 2003). Others argue that mere toleration of group differences falls short of treating members of minority groups as equals; what is required is recognition and positive accommodation of minority group practices through what the leading theorist of multiculturalism Will Kymlicka has called “group-differentiated rights” (1995). Some group-differentiated rights are held by individual members of minority groups, as in the case of individuals who are granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language accommodations in education and in voting. Other group-differentiated rights are held by the group qua group rather by its members severally; such rights are properly called “group rights,” as in the case of indigenous groups and minority nations, who claim the right of self-determination. In the latter respect, multiculturalism is closely allied with nationalism.

Multiculturalism is part of a broader political movement for greater inclusion of marginalized groups, including African Americans, women, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities (Glazer 1997, Hollinger 1995, Taylor 1992). This broader political movement is reflected in the “multiculturalism” debates in the 1980s over whether and how to diversify school curricula to recognize the achievements of historically marginalized groups. But the more specific focus of contemporary theories of multiculturalism is the recognition and inclusion of minority groups defined primarily in terms of ethnicity, nationality, and religion. The main concern of contemporary multiculturalism are immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities (e.g. Latinx people in the U.S., Muslims in Western Europe), minority nations (e.g. the Basque, Catalans, Québécois, Welsh) and indigenous peoples (e.g. Native peoples and indigenous groups in Canada, the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand).

1. The claims of multiculturalism

2.1 recognition, 2.2 equality, 2.3 freedom from domination, 2.4 addressing historical injustice, 3.1 cosmopolitan view of culture, 3.2 toleration requires indifference, not accommodation, 3.3 diversion from a “politics of redistribution”, 3.4 universalist ideal of equality, 3.5 postcolonial critique, 3.6 feminist critique of multiculturalism, 4. political retreat from multiculturalism, related entries, other internet resources.

Multiculturalism is closely associated with “identity politics,” “the politics of difference,” and “the politics of recognition,” all of which share a commitment to revaluing disrespected identities and changing dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalize certain groups (Gutmann 2003, Taylor 1992, Young 1990). Multiculturalism involves not only claims of identity and culture as some critics of multiculturalism suggest. It is also a matter of economic interests and political power: it includes demands for remedying economic and political disadvantages that people suffer as a result of their marginalized group identities.

Multiculturalists take for granted that it is “culture” and “cultural groups” that are to be recognized and accommodated. Yet multicultural claims include a wide range of claims involving religion, language, ethnicity, nationality, and race. Culture is a contested, open-ended concept, and all of these categories have been subsumed by or equated with the concept of culture. Disaggregating and distinguishing among different types of claims can clarify what is at stake (Song 2008). Language and religion are at the heart of many claims for cultural accommodation by immigrants. The key claim made by minority nations is for self-government rights. Race has a more limited role in multicultural discourse. Antiracism and multiculturalism are distinct but related ideas: the former highlights “victimization and resistance” whereas the latter highlights “cultural life, cultural expression, achievements, and the like” (Blum 1992, 14). Claims for recognition in the context of multicultural education are demands not just for recognition of aspects of a group’s actual culture (e.g. African American art and literature) but also for acknowledgment of the history of group subordination and its concomitant experience (Gooding-Williams 1998).

Examples of cultural accommodations or “group-differentiated rights” include exemptions from generally applicable law (e.g. religious exemptions), assistance to do things that members of the majority culture are already enabled to do (e.g. multilingual ballots, funding for minority language schools and ethnic associations, affirmative action), representation of minorities in government bodies (e.g. ethnic quotas for party lists or legislative seats, minority-majority Congressional districts), recognition of traditional legal codes by the dominant legal system (e.g. granting jurisdiction over family law to religious courts), or limited self-government rights (e.g. qualified recognition of tribal sovereignty, federal arrangements recognizing the political autonomy of Québec) (for a helpful classification of cultural rights, see Levy 1997).

Typically, a group-differentiated right is a right of a minority group (or a member of such a group) to act or not act in a certain way in accordance with their religious obligations and/or cultural commitments. In some cases, it is a right that directly restricts the freedom of non-members in order to protect the minority group’s culture, as in the case of restrictions on the use of the English language in Québec. When the right-holder is the group, the right may protect group rules that restrict the freedom of individual members, as in the case of the Pueblo membership rule that excludes the children of women who marry outside the group. Now that you have a sense of the kinds of claims that have been made in the name of multiculturalism, we can now turn to consider different normative justifications for these claims.

2. Justifications for multiculturalism

One justification for multiculturalism arises out of the communitarian critique of liberalism. Liberals tend to be ethical individualists; they insist that individuals should be free to choose and pursue their own conceptions of the good life. They give primacy to individual rights and liberties over community life and collective goods. Some liberals are also individualists when it comes to social ontology (what some call methodological individualism or atomism). Methodological individualists believe that you can and should account for social actions and social goods in terms of the properties of the constituent individuals and individual goods. The target of the communitarian critique of liberalism is not so much liberal ethics as liberal social ontology. Communitarians reject the idea that the individual is prior to the community and that the value of social goods can be reduced to their contribution to individual well-being. They instead embrace ontological holism, which acknowledges collective goods as, in Charles Taylor’s words, “irreducibly social”and intrinsically valuable (Taylor 1995).

An ontologically holist view of collective identities and cultures underlies Taylor’s argument for a “politics of recognition.” Drawing on Rousseau, Herder, and Hegel, among others, Taylor argues that we do not become full human agents and define our identity in isolation from others; rather, “we define our identity always in dialogue with, sometimes in struggle against, the things our significant others want to see in us” (1994, 33). Because our identities are formed dialogically, we are dependent on the recognition of others. The absence of recognition or mis-recognition can cause serious injury: “A person or a group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves” (25). The struggle for recognition can only be satisfactorily resolved through “a regime of reciprocal recognition among equals” (50). Taylor distinguishes the politics of recognition from the traditional liberal “politics of equal respect” that is “inhospitable to difference, because (a) it insists on uniform application of the rules defining these rights, without exception, and (b) it is suspicious of collective goals” (60). By contrast, the politics of recognition is grounded on “judgments about what makes a good life—judgments in which the integrity of cultures has an important place” (61). He discusses the example of the survival of French culture in Quebec. The French language is not merely a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of and thereby seek to preserve, as suggested by a politics of equal respect. Instead, the French language is an irreducibly collective good that itself deserves to be preserved: language policies aimed at preserving the French language in Québec “actively seek to create members of the community” by assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-speakers (58). Because of the indispensable role of cultures in the development human agency and identity, Taylor argues, we should adopt the presumption of the equal worth of all cultures (66).

A second justification for multiculturalism comes from within liberalism but a liberalism that has been revised through critical engagement with the communitarian critique of liberalism. Will Kymlicka has developed the most influential liberal theory of multiculturalism by marrying the liberal values of autonomy and equality with an argument about the value of cultural membership (1989, 1995, 2001). Rather than beginning with intrinsically valuable collective goals and goods as Taylor does, Kymlicka views cultures as instrumentally valuable to individuals, for two main reasons. First, cultural membership is an important condition of personal autonomy. In his first book, Liberalism, Community, and Culture (1989), Kymlicka develops his case for multiculturalism within a Rawlsian framework of justice, viewing cultural membership as a “primary good,” things that every rational person is presumed to want and which are necessary for the pursuit of one’s goals (Rawls 1971, 62). In his later book, Multicultural Citizenship (1995), Kymlicka drops the Rawlsian scaffolding, relying instead on the work of Avishai Margalit and Joseph Raz on national self-determination (1990). One important condition of autonomy is having an adequate range of options from which to choose (Raz 1986). Cultures serve as “contexts of choice,” which provide meaningful options and scripts with which people can frame, revise, and pursue their goals (Kymlicka 1995, 89). Second, cultural membership plays an important role in people’s self-identity. Citing Margalit and Raz as well as Taylor, Kymlicka views cultural identity as providing people with an “anchor for their self-identification and the safety of effortless secure belonging” (1995, 89, quoting Margalit and Raz 1990, 448 and also citing Taylor 1992). This means there is a deep and general connection between a person’s self-respect and the respect accorded to the cultural group of which she is a part. It is not simply membership in any culture but one’s own culture that must be secured in order for cultural membership to serve as a meaningful context of choice and a basis of self-respect.

Kymlicka moves from these premises about the instrumental value of cultural membership to the egalitarian claim that because members of minority groups are disadvantaged in terms of access to their own cultures (in contrast to members of the majority culture), they are entitled to special protections. It is important to note that Kymlicka’s egalitarian argument for multiculturalism rests on a theory of equality that critics have dubbed “luck egalitarianism” (Anderson 1999, Scheffler 2003). According to luck egalitarians, individuals should be held responsible for inequalities resulting from their own choices, but not for inequalities deriving from unchosen circumstances (Dworkin 1981; Rakowski 1993). The latter inequalities are the collective responsibility of citizens to address. For example, inequalities stemming from one’s social starting position in life are unchosen yet so strongly determine our prospects in life. Luck egalitarians argue that those born into poor families are entitled to collective support and assistance via a redistributive tax scheme. Kymlicka adds cultural membership to this list of unchosen inequalities. If one is born into the dominant culture of society, one enjoys good brute luck, whereas those who belong to minority cultures suffer disadvantages in virtue of the bad brute luck of their minority status. Insofar as inequality in access to cultural membership stems from luck (as opposed to individual choices) and one suffers disadvantages as a result of it, members of minority groups can reasonably demand that members of the majority culture must share in bearing the costs of accommodation. Minority group rights are justified, as Kymlicka argues, “within a liberal egalitarian theory…which emphasizes the importance of rectifying unchosen inequalities” (Kymlicka 1995, 109).

One might question whether cultural minority groups really are “disadvantaged” and thereby, owed positive accommodations. Why not just enforce antidiscrimination laws, stopping short of any positive accommodations for minority groups? Kymlicka and other liberal theorists of multiculturalism contend that antidiscrimination laws fall short of treating members of minority groups as equals; this is because states cannot be neutral with respect to culture. In culturally diverse societies, we can easily find patterns of state support for some cultural groups over others. While states may prohibit racial discrimination and avoid official establishment of any religion, they cannot avoid establishing one language for public schooling and other state services (language being a paradigmatic marker of culture) (Kymlicka 1995, 111; Carens 2000, 77–78; Patten 2001, 693). Linguistic advantage translates into economic and political advantage since members of the dominant cultural community have a leg up in schools, the workplace, and politics. Linguistic advantage also takes a symbolic form. When state action extends symbolic affirmation to some groups and not others by adopting a particular language or by organizing the work week and public holidays around the calendar of particular religions, it has a normalizing effect, suggesting that one group’s language and customs are more valued than those of other groups.

In addition to state support of certain cultures over others, state laws may place constraints on some cultural groups over others. Consider the case of dress code regulations in public schools or the workplace. A ban on religious dress burdens religious individuals, as in the case of Simcha Goldman, a U.S. Air Force officer, who was also an ordained rabbi and wished to wear a yarmulke out of respect to an omnipresent God ( Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 US 503 (1986)). The case of the French state’s ban on religious dress in public schools, which burdens Muslim girls who wish to wear headscarves to school, is another example (Bowen 2007, Laborde 2008). Religion may command that believers dress in a certain way (what Peter Jones calls an “intrinsic burden”), not that believers refrain from attending school or going to work (Jones 1994). Yet, burdens on believers do not stem from the dictates of religion alone; they also arise from the intersection of the demands of religion and the demands of the state (“extrinsic burden”). Individuals must bear intrinsic burdens themselves; bearing the burdens of the dictates of one’s faith, such as prayer, worship, and fasting, just is part of meeting one’s religious obligations. When it comes to extrinsic burdens, however, liberal multiculturalists argue that justice requires assisting cultural minorities bear the burdens of these unchosen disadvantages.

It is important to note that liberal multiculturalists distinguish among different types of groups. For instance, Kymlicka’s theory develops a typology of different groups and different types of rights for each. It offers the strongest form of group-differentiated rights—self-government rights—to indigenous peoples and national minorities for the luck egalitarian reason that their minority status is unchosen: they were coercively incorporated into the larger state. By contrast, immigrants are viewed as voluntary migrants: by choosing to migrate, they relinquished access to their native culture. Immigrant multiculturalism, what Kymlicka calls “polyethnic rights”, is understood as a demand for fairer terms of integration into the broader society through the granting of exemptions and accommodations, not a rejection of integration or a demand for collective self-determination (1995, 113–115).

Another set of arguments for multiculturalism rests on the value of freedom. Some theorists such as Phillip Pettit (1997) and Quentin Skinner (1998) have developed the idea of freedom from domination by drawing on the civic republican tradition. Building on this line of argument to argue for recognition, Frank Lovett (2009) maintains that domination presents a serious obstacle to human flourishing. In contrast to the conception of freedom as non-interference dominant in liberal theory, freedom as non-domination, drawn from the civic republic tradition, focuses on a person’s “capacity to interfere, on an arbitrary basis, in certain choices that the other is in a position to make” (Pettit 1997, 52). On this view of freedom, we can be unfree even when we are not experiencing any interference as in the case of a slave of a benevolent master. We are subject to domination to the extent that we are dependent on another person or group who can arbitrarily exercise power over us (Pettit 1997, ch. 2).

Frank Lovett has explored the implications of the value of freedom from domination for questions of multicultural accommodation (2010). He begins from the premise that freedom from domination is an important human good and that we have a prima facie obligation to reduce domination. He argues that the state should not accommodate social practices that directly involve domination. Indeed, if freedom from domination is a priority, then one should “aim to bring such practices to an end as quickly as possible, despite any subjective value they happen to have for their participants” (2010, 256). As for practices that do not involve subjecting individuals to domination, accommodation is permissible but not necessarily required. Accommodation is only required if accommodation would advance the goal of reducing domination. He discusses one stylized example based on a familiar real-world case: the practice among Muslim women and girls of wearing headscarves. Suppose, Lovett suggests, a detailed study of a particular Muslim community in a liberal democratic society is undertaken and it reveals that women’s educational and employment opportunities are discouraged, generating “severe patriarchal domination,” but the study also shows that the practice of wearing headscarves does not (2010, 258). Lovett argues that the practice of wearing headscarves should be accommodated because failure to do so might strengthen the community’s commitment to other shared practices that reinforce patriarchal domination.

A key empirical assumption here is that combating patriarchal practices within minority communities would be easier if the burdens on more benign practices, such as wearing headscarves, are lessened. Cecile Laborde’s analysis of the headscarf controversy in France provides support for this assumption: the effect of preventing Muslim girls from wearing headscarves is to encourage their parents to withdraw their daughters from civic education and send them to religious schools where they would not be exposed to the diversity of world views found in public schools. Formal restrictions on Muslim religious expression in the public sphere may make, in Laborde’s words, “members of dominated groups close ranks around the denigrated practice, precipitating a defensive retreat into conservative cultural forms and identities” (2008, 164).

Another situation in which accommodation is warranted on Lovett’s account is when individuals’ subjective attachment to particular practices makes them vulnerable to exploitation. He discusses the case of Mexican immigrant laborers with limited English language skills and limited knowledge of American laws and policies. Lovett argues that extending “special public measures,” such as exceptions to general rules and regulations and public legal assistance, is required insofar as such measures would reduce the domination of these workers (2010, 260). In contrast to the communitarian or liberal egalitarian arguments considered above, the basis for the special accommodations is not a desire to protect intrinsically valuable cultures or considerations of fairness or equality but the desire to reduce domination.

Mira Bachvarova has also argued for the merits of a non-domination-based multiculturalism as compared to liberal egalitarian approaches. Because of its focus on the arbitrary use of power and the broader structural inequalities within which groups interact, a non-domination approach may be more sensitive to power dynamics in both inter-group and intra-group relations. Also, in contrast to approaches developed out of egalitarian theories of distributive justice that focus on distributing different types of rights, a non-domination approach focuses on the “moral quality of the relationship between the central actors” and insists on continuity of treatment between and within groups (2014, 671).

Other theorists sympathetic to multiculturalism look beyond liberalism and republicanism, emphasizing instead the importance of grappling with historical injustice and listening to minority groups themselves. This is especially true of theorists writing from a postcolonial perspective. For example, in contemporary discussions of aboriginal sovereignty, rather than making claims based on premises about the value of Native cultures and their connection to individual members’ sense of self-worth as liberal multiculturalists have, the focus is on reckoning with history. Such proponents of indigenous sovereignty emphasize the importance of understanding indigenous claims against the historical background of the denial of equal sovereign status of indigenous groups, the dispossession of their lands, and the destruction of their cultural practices (Ivison 2006, Ivison et al. 2000, Moore 2005, Simpson 2000). This background calls into question the legitimacy of the state’s authority over aboriginal peoples and provides a prima facie case for special rights and protections for indigenous groups, including the right of self-government. Jeff Spinner-Halev has argued that the history of state oppression of a group should be a key factor in determining not only whether group rights should be extended but also whether the state should intervene in the internal affairs of the group when it discriminates against particular members of the group. For example, “when an oppressed group uses its autonomy in a discriminatory way against women it cannot simply be forced to stop this discrimination” (2001, 97). Oppressed groups that lack autonomy should be “provisionally privileged” over non-oppressed groups; this means that “barring cases of serious physical harm in the name of a group’s culture, it is important to consider some form of autonomy for the group” (2001, 97; see also Spinner-Halev 2012).

Theorists adopting a postcolonial perspective go beyond liberal multiculturalism toward the goal of developing models of constitutional and political dialogue that recognize culturally distinct ways of speaking and acting. Multicultural societies consist of diverse religious and moral outlooks, and if liberal societies are to take such diversity seriously, they must recognize that liberalism is just one of many substantive outlooks based on a specific view of man and society. Liberalism is not free of culture but expresses a distinctive culture of its own. This observation applies not only across territorial boundaries between liberal and nonliberal states, but also within liberal states and its relations with nonliteral minorities. James Tully has surveyed the language of historical and contemporary constitutionalism with a focus on Western state’s relations with Native peoples to uncover more inclusive bases for intercultural dialogue (1995). Bhikhu Parekh contends that liberal theory cannot provide an impartial framework governing relations between different cultural communities (2000). He argues instead for a more open model of intercultural dialogue in which a liberal society’s constitutional and legal values serve as the initial starting point for cross-cultural dialogue while also being open to contestation.

More recent work has emphasized the importance of developing more contextual approaches that engage with actual political struggles for recognition and give greater voice to minority groups. Through detailed examination of how national museums in Canada and the U.S. have sought to represent and recognize indigenous groups, Caitlin Tom identifies three principles for the practice of recognition: self-definition, responsiveness, and internal contestation. Whether it be museum officials seeking to exhibit the history and culture of minority groups or government officials deciding whether official apologies for historical injustices are in order, they should respect individual and collective self-definition, respond to demands for recognition on terms that align with the terms of those being recognized, and accommodate internal contestation of group meanings. As Tom argues, practices of recognition guided by these principles come closer to fostering freedom and equality of minority groups than existing approaches (2018).

3. Critique of multiculturalism

Some critics contend that theories of multiculturalism are premised on an essentialist view of culture. Cultures are not distinct, self-contained wholes; they have long interacted and influenced one another through war, imperialism, trade, and migration. People in many parts of the world live within cultures that are already cosmopolitan, characterized by cultural hybridity. As Jeremy Waldron argues, “We live in a world formed by technology and trade; by economic, religious, and political imperialism and their offspring; by mass migration and the dispersion of cultural influences. In this context, to immerse oneself in the traditional practices of, say, an aboriginal culture might be a fascinating anthropological experiment, but it involves an artificial dislocation from what actually is going on in the world” (1995, 100). To aim at preserving or protecting a culture runs the risk of privileging one allegedly pure version of that culture, thereby crippling its ability to adapt to changes in circumstances (Waldron 1995, 110; see also Appiah 2005, Benhabib 2002, Scheffler 2007). Waldron also rejects the premise that the options available to an individual must come from a particular culture; meaningful options may come from a variety of cultural sources. What people need are cultural materials, not access to a particular cultural structure. For example, the Bible, Roman mythology, and the Grimms’ fairy tales have all influenced American culture, but these cultural sources cannot be seen as part of a single cultural structure that multiculturalists like Kymlicka aim to protect.

In response, multicultural theorists agree that cultures are overlapping and interactive, but they nonetheless maintain that individuals belong to separate societal cultures. In particular, Kymlicka has argued that while options available to people in any modern society come from a variety of ethnic and historical sources, these options become meaningful to us only if “they become part of the shared vocabulary of social life—i.e. embodied in the social practices, based on a shared language, that we are exposed to... That we learn...from other cultures, or that we borrow words from other languages, does not mean that we do not still belong to separate societal cultures, or speak different languages” (1995, 103). Liberal egalitarian defenders of multiculturalism like Kymlicka maintain that special protections for minority cultural groups still hold, even after we adopt a more cosmopolitan view of cultures, because the aim of group-differentiated rights is not to freeze cultures in place but to empower members of minority groups to continue their distinctive cultural practices so long as they wish to.

A second major criticism is aimed at liberal multicultural theories of accommodation in particular and stems from the value of freedom of association and conscience. If we take these ideas seriously and accept both ontological and ethical individualism as discussed above, then we are led to defend not special protections for groups but the individual’s right to form and leave associations. As Chandran Kukathas (1995, 2003) argues, there are no group rights, only individual rights. By granting cultural groups special protections and rights, the state oversteps its role, which is to secure civility, and risks undermining individual rights of association. States should not pursue “cultural integration” or “cultural engineering” but rather a “politics of indifference” toward minority groups (2003, 15).

One limitation of such a laissez-faire approach is that groups that do not themselves value toleration and freedom of association, including the right to dissociate or exit a group, may practice internal discrimination against group members, and the state would have little authority to interfere in such associations. A politics of indifference would permit the abuse of vulnerable members of groups (discussed below in 3.6), tolerating, in Kukathas’s words, “communities which bring up children unschooled and illiterate; which enforce arranged marriages; which deny conventional medical care to their members (including children); and which inflict cruel and ‘unusual’ punishment” (Kukathas 2003, 134). To embrace such a state of affairs would be to abandon the values of autonomy and equality, values that many liberals take to be fundamental to any liberalism worth its name.

A third challenge to multiculturalism views it as a form of a “politics of recognition” that diverts attention from a “politics of redistribution.” We can distinguish analytically between these modes of politics: a politics of recognition challenges status inequality and the remedy it seeks is cultural and symbolic change, whereas a politics of redistribution challenges economic inequality and exploitation and the remedy it seeks is economic restructuring (Fraser 1997, Fraser and Honneth 2003). Working class mobilization tilts toward the redistribution end of the spectrum, and claims for exemption from generally applicable laws and the movement for same-sex marriage are on the recognition end. In the U.S. critics who view themselves as part of the “progressive left” worry that the rise of the “cultural left” with its emphasis on multiculturalism and difference turns the focus away from struggles for economic justice (Gitlin 1995, Rorty 1999). Critics in the United Kingdom and Europe have also expressed concern about the effects of multiculturalism on social trust and public support for economic redistribution (Barry 2001, Miller 2006, van Parijs 2004). Phillipe van Parijs invited scholars to consider the proposition, “Other things being equal, the more cultural... homogeneity within the population of a defined territory, the better the prospects in terms of economic solidarity” (2004, 8).

There are two distinct concerns here. The first is that the existence of racial and ethnic diversity reduces social trust and solidarity, which in turn undermines public support for policies that involve economic redistribution. For example, Robert Putnam argues that the decline in social trust and civic participation in the U.S. is strongly correlated with racial and ethnic diversity (2007). Rodney Hero has shown that the greater the racial and ethnic heterogeneity in a state, the more restrictive state-level welfare programs are (Hero 1998, Hero and Preuhs 2007). Cross-national analyses suggest that differences in racial diversity explain a significant part of the reason why the U.S. has not developed a European-style welfare state (Alesina and Glaeser 2004). The second concern is that multiculturalism policies themselves undermine the welfare-state by heightening the salience of racial and ethnic differences among groups and undermining a sense of common national identity that is viewed as necessary for a robust welfare state (Barry 2001, Gitlin 1995, Rorty 1999).

In response, theorists of multiculturalism have called for and collaborated on more empirical research of these purported trade-offs. With respect to the first concern about the tension between diversity and redistribution, Kymlicka and Banting question the generalizability of the empirical evidence that is largely drawn from research either on Africa, where the weakness of state institutions has meant no usable traditions or institutional capacity for dealing with diversity, or on the U.S., where racial inequality has been shaped by centuries of slavery and segregation. Where many minority groups are newcomers and where state institutions are strong, the impact of increasing diversity may be quite different (Kymlicka and Banting 2006, 287). Barbara Arneil has also challenged Putnam’s social capital thesis, arguing that participation in civil society has changed, not declined, largely as a result of mobilization among cultural minorities and women seeking greater inclusion and equality (Arneil 2006a). She argues that it is not diversity itself that leads to changes in trust and civic engagement but the politics of diversity, i.e. how different groups respond to and challenge the norms governing their society. The central issue, then, is not to reduce diversity but to determine principles and procedures by which differences are renegotiated in the name of justice (Arneil and MacDonald 2010).

As for the second concern about the tradeoff between recognition and redistribution, the evidence upon which early redistributionist critics such as Barry and Rorty relied was speculative and conjectural. Recent cross-national research suggests that there is no evidence of a systematic tendency for multiculturalism policies to weaken the welfare state (Banting et al. 2006). Irene Bloemraad’s comparative study of immigrant integration in Canada and the U.S. offers support for the view that not only is there no trade-off between multiculturalism and the welfare-state but multiculturalism policies can actually increase attention and resources devoted to redistributive policies. She finds that Canada’s multiculturalism policies, which provide immigrants with a variety of services in their native languages and encourage them to preserve their cultural traditions even as they become Canadian citizens, are the main reason why the naturalization rate among permanent residents in Canada is twice that of permanent residents in the U.S. Multiculturalists agree more empirical research is needed, but they nonetheless maintain that redistribution and recognition are not either/or propositions. Both are important dimensions in the pursuit of equality for minority groups. In practice, both redistribution and recognition—responding to material disadvantages and marginalized identities and statuses—are required to achieve greater equality across lines of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexuality, and class, not least because many individuals stand at the intersection of these different categories and suffer multiple forms of marginalization. A politics of recognition is important not only on account of its effects on socioeconomic status and political participation but also for the sake of full inclusion of members of marginalized groups as equal citizens.

A fourth objection takes issue with liberal multiculturalist’s understanding of what equality requires. Brian Barry defends a universalist ideal of equality, in contrast to the group-differentiated ideal of equality defended by Kymlicka. Barry argues that religious and cultural minorities should be held responsible for bearing the consequences of their own beliefs and practices, just as members of the dominant culture are held responsible for bearing the consequences of their beliefs. He does think that special accommodations are owed to people with disabilities, but he believes religious and cultural affiliations are different from physical disabilities: the former do not constrain people in the way that physical disabilities do. A physical disability supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it limits a person’s opportunities to engage in activities that others are able to engage in. In contrast, religion and culture may shape one’s willingness to seize an opportunity, but they do not affect whether one has an opportunity. Barry argues that egalitarian justice is only concerned with ensuring a reasonable range of equal opportunities, not with ensuring equal access to any particular choices or outcomes (2001, 37). When it comes to cultural and religious affiliations, they do not limit the range of opportunities one enjoys but rather the choices one can make within the set of opportunities available to all.

In reply, one might agree that opportunities are not objective in the strong physicalist sense suggested by Barry. But the opportunity to do X is not just having the possibility to do X without facing physical encumbrances; it is also the possibility of doing X without incurring excessive costs or the risk of such costs (Miller 2002, 51). State law and cultural commitments can conflict in ways such that the costs for cultural minorities of taking advantage of the opportunity are prohibitively high. In contrast to Barry, liberal multiculturalists argue that many cases where a law or policy disparately impacts a religious or cultural practice constitute injustice. For instance, Kymlicka points to the Goldman case (discussed above) and other religion cases, as well as to claims for language rights, as examples in which group-differentiated rights are required in light of the differential impact of state action (1995, 108–115). His argument is that since the state cannot achieve complete disestablishment of culture or be neutral with respect to culture, it must somehow make it up to citizens who are bearers of minority religious beliefs and native speakers of other languages. Because complete state disestablishment of culture is not possible, one way to ensure fair background conditions is to provide roughly comparable forms of assistance or recognition to each of the various languages and religions of citizens. To do nothing would be to permit injustice.

Some postcolonial theorists are critical of multiculturalism and the contemporary politics of recognition for reinforcing, rather than transforming, structures of colonial domination in relations between settler states and indigenous communities. Focusing on Taylor’s theory of the politics of recognition, Glen Coulthard has argued that “instead of ushering in an era of peaceful coexistence grounded on the Hegelian idea of reciprocity, the politics of recognition in its contemporary form promises to reproduce the very configurations of colonial power that indigenous peoples’ demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend” (2007, 438–9; see also Coulthard 2014). There are several elements to Coulthard’s critique. First, he argues that the politics of recognition, through its focus on reformist state redistributionist schemes like granting cultural rights and concessions to aboriginal communities, affirms rather than challenges the political economy of colonialism. In this regard, the politics of recognition reveals itself to be a variant of liberalism, which “fails to confront the structural/economic aspects of colonialism at its generative roots” (2007, 446). Second, the contemporary politics of recognition toward indigenous communities rests on a flawed sociological assumption: that both parties engaged in the struggle for recognition are mutually dependent on one another’s acknowledgement for their freedom and self-worth. Yet, no such mutual dependency exists in actual relations between nation-states and indigenous communities: “the master—that is, the colonial state and state society—does not require recognition from the previously self-determining communities upon which its territorial, economic, and social infrastructure is constituted” (451). Third, Coulthard argues that true emancipation for the colonized cannot occur without struggle and conflict that “serves as the mediating force through which the colonized come to shed their colonial identities” (449). He employs Frantz Fanon to argue that the road to true self-determination for the oppressed lies in self-affirmation: rather than depending on their oppressors for their freedom and self-worth, “the colonized must initiate the process of decolonization by recognizing themselves as free, dignified and distinct contributors to humanity” (454). This means that indigenous peoples should “collectively redirect our struggles away from a politics that seeks to attain a conciliatory form of settler-state recognition for Indigenous nations toward a resurgent politics of recognition premised on self-actualization, direct action, and the resurgence of cultural practices that are attentive to the subjective and structural composition of settler-colonial power” (2014, 24).

Taylor, Kymlicka, and other proponents of the contemporary politics of recognition might agree with Coulthard that self-affirmation by oppressed groups is critical for true self-determination and freedom of indigenous communities, but such self-affirmation need not be viewed as mutually exclusive from state efforts to extend institutional accommodations. State recognition of self-government rights and other forms of accommodation are important steps toward rectifying historical injustices and transforming structural inequalities between the state and indigenous communities. Coulthard’s analysis redirects attention to the importance of evaluating and challenging the structural and psycho-affective dimensions of colonial domination, but by arguing that indigenous peoples should “turn away” (2007, 456) from settler-states and settler societies may play into the neoliberal turn toward the privatization of dependency and to risk reinforcing the marginalization of indigenous communities at a time when economic and other forms of state support may be critical to the survival of indigenous communities.

The set of critiques that has ignited perhaps the most intense debate about multiculturalism argues that extending protections to minority groups may come at the price of reinforcing oppression of vulnerable members of those groups—what some have called the problem of “internal minorities” or “minorities within minorities” (Green 1994, Eisenberg and Spinner-Halev 2005). Multicultural theorists have tended to focus on inequalities between groups in arguing for special protections for minority groups, but group-based protections can exacerbate inequalities within minority groups. This is because some ways of protecting minority groups from oppression by the majority may make it more likely that more powerful members of those groups are able to undermine the basic liberties and opportunities of vulnerable members. Vulnerable subgroups within minority groups include religious dissenters, sexual minorities, women, and children. A group’s leaders may exaggerate the degree of consensus and solidarity within their group to present a united front to the wider society and strengthen their case for accommodation.

Some of the most oppressive group norms and practices revolve around issues of gender and sexuality, and it is feminist critics who first called attention to potential tensions between multiculturalism and feminism (Coleman 1996, Okin 1999, Shachar 2000). These tensions constitute a genuine dilemma if one accepts both that group-differentiated rights for minority cultural groups are justifiable, as multicultural theorists do, and that gender equality is an important value, as feminists have emphasized. Extending special protections and accommodations to minority groups engaged in patriarchal practices may help reinforce gender inequality within these communities. Examples that have been analyzed in the scholarly literature include conflicts over arranged marriage, the ban on headscarves, the use of “cultural defenses” in criminal law, accommodating religious law or customary law within dominant legal systems, and self-government rights for indigenous communities that reinforce the inequality of women.

These feminist objections are especially troublesome for liberal egalitarian defenders of multiculturalism who wish to promote not only inter-group equality but also intra-group equality, including gender equality. In response, Kymlicka (1999) has emphasized the similarities between multiculturalism and feminism: both aim at a more inclusive conception of justice, and both challenge the traditional liberal assumption that equality requires identical treatment. To address the concern about multicultural accommodations exacerbating intra-group inequality, Kymlicka distinguishes between two kinds of group rights: “external protections” are rights that a minority group claims against non-members in order to reduce its vulnerability to the economic and political power of the larger society, whereas “internal restrictions” are rights that a minority group claims against its own members. He argues that a liberal theory of minority group rights defends external protections while rejecting internal restrictions (1995, 35–44;1999, 31).

But many feminist critics have emphasized, granting external protections to minority groups may sometimes come at the price of internal restrictions. They may be different sides of the same coin: for example, respecting the self-government rights of Native communities may entail permitting sexually discriminatory membership rules enacted by the leaders of those communities. Whether multiculturalism and feminism can be reconciled within liberal theory depends in part on the empirical premise that groups that seek group-differentiated rights do not support patriarchal norms and practices. If they do, liberal multiculturalists would in principle have to argue against extending the group right or extending it with certain qualifications, such as conditioning the extension of self-government rights to Native peoples on the acceptance of a constitutional bill of rights.

There has been a wave of feminist responses to the problem of vulnerable internal minorities that is sympathetic to both multiculturalism and feminism (see, e.g., Arneil 2006b, Deveaux 2006, Eisenberg 2003, Lépinard 2011, Phillips 2007, Shachar 2001, Song 2007, Volpp 2000). Some feminists have emphasized the importance of moving away from essentialist notions of culture and reductive views of members of minority groups as incapable of meaningful agency (Phillips 2007, Volpp 2000). Other feminists have sought to shift the emphasis from liberal rights towards more democratic approaches. Liberal theorists have tended to start from the question of whether and how minority cultural practices should be tolerated or accommodated in accordance with liberal principles, whereas democratic theorists foreground the role of democratic deliberation and ask how affected parties understand the contested practice. By drawing on the voices of affected parties and giving special weight to the voice of women at the center of gendered cultural conflicts, deliberation can clarify the interests at stake and enhance the legitimacy of responses to cultural conflicts (Benhabib 2002, Deveaux 2006, Song 2007). Deliberation also provides opportunities for minority group members to expose instances of cross-cultural hypocrisy and to consider whether and how the norms and institutions of the larger society, whose own struggles for gender equality are incomplete and ongoing, may reinforce rather than challenge sexist practices within minority groups (Song 2005). There is contestation over what constitutes subordination and how best to address it, and intervention into minority cultural groups without the participation of minority women themselves fails to respect their freedom and is not likely to serve their interests.

The biggest challenge to multiculturalism today may not be philosophical but political: a political retreat or backlash against immigrant multiculturalism in particular. Some scholars have diagnosed a “retreat” from multiculturalism in Europe and Australia, which they attribute to a lack of public support based partly on the limited success of such policies to foster the integration of minorities (Joppke 2004, McGhee 2008). But other scholars argue there is lack of evidence of any such retreat. Based on their analysis of British policies, Varun Uberoi and Tariq Modood find that legal exemptions for minority religious practices, anti-discrimination measures, and multicultural education policies remain in place, and there is no country-wide evidence suggesting that public services are no longer delivered in different languages (2013, 134). Further research is needed on whether and why there has been a retreat from multiculturalism policies.

Perhaps the claim about a “retreat” from multiculturalism has less to do with any actual changes in state policies and more with concerns about lack of social unity and increasing tensions among diverse groups in liberal democratic societies and the sense that multiculturalism is somehow to blame. Consider then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s 2011 speech: “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they [young Muslims] feel they want to belong” (Cameron 2011). According to Cameron, multiculturalism stands for separation and division, not integration and unity. But the survey of different theories of multiculturalism above demonstrates that most theories of immigrant multiculturalism do not aim at separation but rather devising fairer terms of inclusion for religious and cultural minorities into mainstream society (Kymlicka 1995).

Going forward, public debate about immigrant multiculturalism should be pursued in a broader context that considers the politics of immigration, race, religion, and national security. Multiculturalism may become an easy rhetorical scapegoat for public fear and anxiety whenever national security is seen to be threatened and when economic conditions are bad. In Europe, concerns about the radicalization of Muslim minorities have become central to public debates about immigration and multiculturalism. This was especially true in the face of the European migration crisis as over a million people fleeing war and violence in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere made perilous journeys by sea and land into Europe. This crisis tapped into fears about terrorism and security, especially after the November 2015 Paris and July 2016 Nice attacks; it also renewed concerns about the limits of past efforts to integrate newcomers and their descendants. Evidence from across Europe suggests that Muslims are struggling to succeed in education and the labor market in comparison to other religious and cultural minorities (Givens 2007).

Socioeconomic and political marginalization interacts with immigrants’ own sense of belonging: it is hard to imagine newcomers feeling integrated before they make significant steps toward socioeconomic integration. Integration is a two-way street: not only must immigrants work to integrate themselves, but the state itself must make accommodations to facilitate integration, as many multicultural theorists have emphasized. As Cecile Laborde observes, North African youth in France are “routinely blamed for not being integrated,” but this blame “confuses French society’s institutional responsibility to integrate immigrants with immigrants’ personal failure to integrate into society” (Laborde 2008, 208). The challenge of integrating immigrants has been heightened by increasing public acceptability of expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment. The rise of far-right political parties and their anti-Muslim publicity campaigns, coupled with the media’s willingness to report, often uncritically, their positions damage the prospects for integrating Muslims in Europe (Lenard 2010, 311). Muslim political leaders report that it is “part of mainstream public dialogue” to refer to the “menace of foreign cultures and the threat posed by immigrants in general, and Muslims in particular, to social solidarity and cultural homogeneity” (Klausen 2005, 123). Muslims have been, in Laborde’s words, “reduced to their presumed identity, culture, or religion, and consequently stigmatized as immigrant, Arab, or Muslim” (2008, 17). The challenges posed by integrating Muslims are thought to be more complex than the challenges of integrating earlier waves of immigrants, but as Patti Lenard argues, this alleged complexity derives from the simplistic and unfair elision between Islamic fundamentalism and the vast majority of Muslim minorities in Europe who desire integration on fairer terms of the sort that multiculturalists defend (Lenard 2010, 318).

In light of these concerns with immigrant multiculturalism, multicultural theorists need to continue to make the case that the ideal of multicultural citizenship stands for fairer terms of integration, not separation and division, and offer answers to questions such as: Why is multicultural citizenship more desirable than the traditional liberal ideal of common citizenship based on a uniform set of rights and opportunities for everyone? Are multiculturalism policies actually fostering greater integration of immigrants and their descendants? How should we think about the relationship between multiculturalism and struggles to address inequalities based on race, indigeneity, class, gender, sexuality, and disability? It is also important to study the development of multiculturalism beyond the West, including whether and how Western theories and practices of multiculturalism have traveled and been incorporated. For example, what lessons have states that only recently opened up to significant immigration, such as South Korea, drawn from the experiences of other states, and what sorts of multiculturalism policies have they adopted and why? (Lie 2014)

• Alesina, A. and E. Glaeser, 2004, Fighting Poverty in the U.S. and Europe: A World of Difference , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Anderson, E., 1999, “What is the Point of Equality?,” Ethics , 109(2): 287–337.
• Appiah, A., 2005, The Ethics of Identity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Arneil, B., 2006a, Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2006b, “Cultural Protections vs. Cultural Justice: Post-colonialism, Agonistic Justice and the Limitations of Liberal Theory,” in Sexual Justice, Cultural Justice: Critical Perspectives in Theory and Practice , B. Arneil, R. Dhamoon, A. Eisenberg, and M. Deveaux (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 60–78.
• Arneil, B. and F. MacDonald, 2016, “Multiculturalism and the Social Sphere,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Multiculturalism , D. Ivison (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 95–117.
• Bachvarova, M., 2014, “Multicultural Accommodation and the Ideal of Non-Domination,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 17(6): 652–673.
• Banting, K. and R. Johnston, W. Kymlicka, and S. Soroka, 2006, “Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State? An Empirical Analysis,” in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State , K. Banting and W. Kymlicka (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–91.
• Banting, K. and W. Kymlicka (eds.), 2006, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Barry, B., 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Benhabib, S., 2002, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Bloemraad, I., 2006, Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Blum, L.A., 1992, “Antiracism, Multiculturalism, and Interracial Community: Three Educational Values for a Multicultural Society”, Office of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
• Bowen, J.R., 2007, Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cameron, D., 2011, “PM’s Speech at Munich Security Conference,” available online .
• Carens, J., 2000, Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chambers, C., 2002, “All Must Have Prizes: The Liberal Case for Interference in Cultural Practices,” in Multiculturalism Reconsidered , Paul Kelly (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 151–73.
• Coleman, D.L., 1996, “Individualizing Justice through Multiculturalism: The Liberals’ Dilemma,” Columbia Law Review , 96(5): 1093–1167.
• Coulthard, G., 2007, “Subjects of Empire: Indigenous Peoples and the ‘Politics of Recognition’ in Canada,” Contemporary Political Theory , 6(4): 437–60.
• –––, 2014, Red Skins, White Masks: Rejecting the Colonial Politics of Recognition , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Crowder, G., 2013, Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Deveaux, M., 2005, “A Deliberative Approach to Conflicts of Culture,” in A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev 2005 (eds.), pp. 340–62.
• –––, 2006, Gender and Justice in Multicultural Liberal States , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Eisenberg, A., 2003, “Diversity and Equality: Three Approaches to Cultural and Sexual Difference,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 11(1): 41–64.
• Eisenberg, A. and J. Spinner-Halev (eds.), 2005, Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights, and Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fraser, N., 1997, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition , London: Routledge.
• ––– and A. Honneth, 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-philosophical Exchange , London: Verso.
• Friedman, M., 2003, Autonomy, Gender, Politics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gitlin, T., 1995, The Twilight of Common Dreams: Why America Is Wracked by Culture Wars , New York: Metropolitan Books.
• Givens, T., 2007, “Immigrant Integration in Europe: Empirical Research,” Annual Review of Political Science , 10(1): 67–83
• Glazer, N., 1997, We Are All Multiculturalists Now , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gooding-Williams, R., 1998, “Race, Multiculturalism and Democracy,” Constellations , 5(1): 18–41.
• Green, L., 1994, “Internal Minorities and Their Rights,” in Group Rights , J. Baker (ed.), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 101–117.
• Guérard de Latour, S., 2015, “Cultural Insecurity and Political Solidarity: French Republicanism Reconsidered,” in France since the 1970s: History, Politics and Memory in a Age of Uncertainty , Emile Cabal (ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 245–262.
• Gutmann, A., 2003, Identity in Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hero, R., 1998, Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hero, R. and R. Preuhs, 2006, “Multiculturalism and Welfare Policies in the USA: A State-Level Comparative Analysis,” in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies , K. Banting and W. Kymlicka (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–151.
• Ho, C., and A. Jakubowicz (eds.), 2014, ‘For Those Who’ve Come Across the Seas’: Australian Multicultural Theory, Policy, and Practice , London: Anthem Press.
• Hollinger, D., 1995, Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism , New York: Basic Books.
• Huntington, S.P., 2005, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Ivison, D., 2006, “Historical Injustice,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory , J. Dryzek, B. Honig, and A. Phillips (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 507–25.
• ––– (ed.), 2010, The Ashgate Research Companion to Multiculturalism , Surrey: Ashgate.
• Ivison, D., P. Patton, and W. Sanders, 2000, Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Johnson, J., 2000, “Why Respect Culture?,” American Journal of Political Science , 44(3): 405–418.
• Jones, P., 1994, “Bearing the Consequences of Belief,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 2(1): 24–43.
• Joppke, C., 2004, “The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy,” British Journal of Sociology , 55(2): 237–57.
• Kelly, P., 2002 , Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and Its Critics , Oxford: Polity Press.
• Klausen, J. 2005, The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kukathas, C., 1995, “Are There Any Cultural Rights?” Political Theory , 20: 105–139.
• –––, 2003, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kymlicka, W. 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1995, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––(ed.), 1995, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1999, “Liberal Complacencies”, in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? , J. Cohen and M. Howard, and M.C. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 31–34.
• –––, 2001, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2007, Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kymlicka, W. and K. Banting, 2006, “Immigration, Multiculturalism, and the Welfare State,” Ethics & International Affairs , 20(3): 281–304.
• Kymlicka, W. and A. Patten (eds.), 2003, Language Rights and Political Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laborde, C., 2008, Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laden, A.S., and D. Owen (eds.), 2007, Multiculturalism and Political Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lenard, P., 2010, “What Can Multicultural Theory Tell Us about Integrating Muslims in Europe?,” Political Studies Review , 8: 308–321.
• Lépinard, E., 2011, “Autonomy and the Crisis of the Feminist Subject: Revisiting Okin’s Dilemma,” Constellations: An International Journal in Critical and Democratic Theory , 18: 205–221.
• Levey, G.B. (ed.), 2008, Political Theory and Australian Multiculturalism , New York: Berghahn Books.
• –––and T. Modood (eds.), 2009, Secularism, Religion, and Multicultural Citizenship , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Levy, J.T., 1997, “Classifying Cultural Rights,” in Nomos XXXIX: Ethnicity and Group Rights , W. Kymlicka and I. Shapiro (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 22–66.
• –––, 2000, Multiculturalism of Fear , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lie, J. (ed.), 2014, Multiethnic Korea? Multiculturalism, Migration, and Peoplehood Diversity in Contemporary South Korea , Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
• Lovett, F., 2009, “Domination and Distributive Justice,” Journal of Politics , 71: 817–830.
• –––, 2010, “Cultural Accommodation and Domination,” Political Theory , 38(2): 243–267.
• Margalit, A. and J. Raz, 1990, “National Self-Determination,” Journal of Philosophy , 87(9): 439–461.
• Markell, P., 2003, Bound by Recognition , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• May, S. and C. Sleeter, 2010, Critical Multiculturalism: Theory and Praxis , New York: Routledge.
• Means, A., 2002, “Narrative Argumentation: Arguing with Natives,” Constellations , 9(2): 221–245.
• Miller, D., 2002, “Liberalism, Equal Opportunities and Cultural Commitments,” in Multicultural Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and Its Critics , P. Kelly (ed.), Oxford: Polity Press, pp.45–61.
• –––, 2006, “Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections,” in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State K. Banting and W. Kymlicka (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 322–338.
• Modood, T., 1998, “Anti-Essentialism, Multiculturalism, and the ‘Recognition’ of Religious Groups,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 6(4): 378–399.
• –––, 2010, Still Not Easy Being British: Struggles for a Multicultural Citizenship , Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
• –––, 2013, Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea , 2nd edition, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Moore, M., 2005, “Internal Minorities and Indigenous Self-Determination,” in A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev 2005 (eds.), pp. 271–293.
• Okin, S., 1998, “Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions,” Ethics , 108(4): 661–684.
• –––, 1999, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? , J. Cohen, M. Howard, and M.C. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 7–24.
• –––, 2005, “Multiculturalism and Feminism: No Simple Questions, No Simple Answers,” in A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev (eds.) 2005, pp. 67–89.
• Parekh, B., 2000, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Patten, A., 2001, “The Rights of Internal Linguistic Minorities,” in A. Eisenberg and J. Spinner-Halev (eds.) 2005, pp. 135–154.
• –––, 2014, Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Rights , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Pettit, P., 1997, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government , Oxford: Clarendon.
• Phillips, A., 2007, Multiculturalism without Culture , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Rattansi, A., 2011, Multiculturalism: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Raz, J., 1986, The Morality of Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rorty, R., 1999, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, “Is ‘Cultural Recognition’ a Useful Concept for Leftist Politics?,” Critical Horizons , 1: 7–20.
• Scheffler, S., 2001, “Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism,” in Boundaries and Allegiances: Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–130.
• –––, 2003, “What is Egalitarianism?,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 31(1): 5–39.
• –––, 2007, “Immigration and the Significance of Culture,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 35(2): 93–125.
• Shachar, A., 2000, “On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability,” Political Theory , 28: 64–89.
• –––, 2001, Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Simpson, A., 2000, “Paths toward a Mohawk Nation: Narratives of Citizenship and Nationhood in Kahnawake,” in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples , D. Ivison, P. Patton, and W. Sanders (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–136.
• Skinner, Q., 1998, Liberty before Liberalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Song, S., 2005, “Majority Norms, Multiculturalism, and Gender Equality,” American Political Science Review , 99(4): 473–1489.
• –––, 2007, Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008, “The Subject of Multiculturalism: Culture, Religion, Language, Ethnicity, Nationality, and Race?” in New Waves in Political Philosophy , B. de Bruin and C. Zurn (eds.), New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 177–197.
• Spinner-Halev, J., 2001, “Feminism, Multiculturalism, Oppression, and the State,” Ethics , 112: 84–113.
• –––, 2012, Enduring Injustice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor, C., [1992] 1994, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , A. Gutmann (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 25–73.
• –––, 1995, “Irreducibly Social Goods,”, in Philosophical Arguments , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 127–145.
• Tom, C., 2018, Rethinking Recognition: Freedom, Self-Definition, and Principles for Practice , Ph.D. Dissertation, Political Science Department, University of California/Berkeley, available online .
• Tully, J., 1995, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Uberoi, V. and T. Modood, 2013, “Has Multiculturalism in Britain Retreated?,” Soundings , 53: 129–142.
• van Parijs, P. (ed.), 2004, Cultural Diversity versus Economic Solidarity , Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck.
• Volpp, L., 2000, “Blaming Culture for Bad Behavior,” Yale Journal of Law and Humanities , 12: 89–116.
• Waldron, J., 1992, “Superseding Historic Injustice,” Ethics , 103(1): 4–28.
• –––, 1995, “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative,” in The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–119
• Williams, M., 1998, Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Young, I.M., 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

citizenship | colonialism | communitarianism | culture | egalitarianism | identity politics | immigration | nationalism | -->pluralism --> | religious diversity | rights: group

Copyright © 2020 by Sarah Song < ssong @ law . berkeley . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Multiculturalism

Introduction, general works.

• Theories of Multiculturalism
• Anthologies
• Nationalism and Self-Determination
• Indigenous Peoples
• Secularism and Religious Diversity
• Race, Racism, and Racial Identity
• Toleration, Harm, and the Limits of Multicultural Accommodation
• Multiculturalism and Gender Equality
• Citizenship, Solidarity, and Social Cohesion
• American Multiculturalism
• Multiculturalism in Comparative Perspective
• Critical and Alternative Perspectives
• White Identity and Majority Cultural Rights

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Applied Ethics
• John Stuart Mill

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Alfred North Whitehead
• Feminist Aesthetics and Feminist Philosophy of Art
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Multiculturalism by Michael Murphy LAST REVIEWED: 25 September 2023 LAST MODIFIED: 25 September 2023 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0361

Multiculturalism is a branch of political philosophy that explores the relationship between cultural diversity and human freedom and well-being, while offering justifications for accommodating the claims of cultural minorities in legal and political institutions and public policies. Multiculturalism is an umbrella term that covers several distinct subliteratures, including the study of identity politics, the politics of recognition, national self-determination and the politics of multinational citizenship, secularism and religious diversity, and the politics of indigeneity. Within these distinct literatures there are many different theories of multicultural accommodation, each with its own unique set of assumptions, argumentative strategies, and guiding normative principles, yet most of these theories converge around a common set of questions and concerns. Perhaps the most fundamental question is which social groups are included in the term “cultural minority”? While some define this term very broadly, most theorists focus their attention on ethnocultural groups such as immigrants and historical linguistic minorities; ethnonational groups, including stateless nations and indigenous peoples; religious minorities, such as European Muslims or North American Hasidim; and, to a somewhat lesser extent, racial minorities such as African Americans. Multiculturalists also seek to understand the nature of the demands these different groups make on the state, and what specific changes in law, the configuration of public institutions, or the distribution of rights and resources are critical to addressing their concerns. For example, linguistic and religious minorities might seek the right to operate their own separate religious schools with public funding, immigrant minorities may seek exemptions from certain laws or regulations (e.g., dress codes) that inhibit their participation in public institutions, while stateless nations and indigenous peoples frequently demand rights to territory and self-government. While there is near-universal agreement among multiculturalists that states should accommodate at least some of the demands of cultural minorities, they frequently disagree when it comes to determining the precise nature of that accommodation and how it can be justified in moral terms. Multiculturalists also differ profoundly when it comes to striking a balance between minority rights and traditional liberal concerns for freedom, equality, and fundamental individual rights (especially the rights of women and minors), and in terms of how they address the impact of multicultural policies on citizenship, social cohesion, and national unity. Although multiculturalism encompasses its own distinct universe of concerns, in many ways it grapples with age-old philosophical questions such as the nature of justice, the limits of liberal toleration, the significance of the secular-religious divide, and the appropriate division between the spheres of public and private life. In a world where issues of religious, ethnic, and ethnonational diversity continue to be a major source of public and political concern, multicultural political philosophy comprises an invaluable source both of moral and practical guidance.

This category includes general introductions to multiculturalism ( Crowder 2013 , Murphy 2012 ), collections of influential essays by single authors ( Kymlicka 2001 , Tully 2008 ), and other works that, while not aiming to be comprehensive theories of multiculturalism, nevertheless examine questions of diversity through a distinctive theoretical lens, such as the politics of difference ( Young 1990 ), diverse constitutionalism ( Tully 1995 ), even-handed justice ( Carens 2000 ), identity claims ( Eisenberg 2009 ), deliberative democracy ( Festenstein 2005 ), or recognition ( Modood 2013 ).

Carens, Joseph H. Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness . New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

DOI: 10.1093/0198297688.001.0001

Defends the merits of a case- and context-sensitive approach to cultural justice that incorporates a state policy of evenhandedness (as opposed to a hands-off policy of liberal neutrality) toward cultural-minority claims. Includes very insightful analyses of nationalism, immigration and language policy, religious difference, and indigenous rights.

Crowder, George. Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction . Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2013.

A good overview and analysis of the main thinkers on the different sides of the multiculturalism debates. Also articulates a contextual approach to questions of cultural accommodation that is inspired by the value pluralism of Isaiah Berlin.

Eisenberg, Avigail. Reasons of Identity: A Normative Guide to the Political and Legal Assessment of Identity Claims . New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291304.001.0001

Examines the prospects and perils of using identity-based justifications for accommodating minority demands. Of interest both to pure theorists and those looking for practical insights into how courts, legislatures, and other public institutions can address questions of religious, indigenous, gender, and sexual identity in a coherent and equitable manner.

Festenstein, Matthew. Negotiating Diversity: Liberalism, Democracy & Cultural Difference . Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2005.

A deliberative approach to the politics of cultural diversity that offers a highly informative, and balanced, critical engagement with some of the more influential theories of multicultural accommodation.

Kymlicka, Will. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

DOI: 10.1093/0199240981.001.0001

Brings together some of Kymlicka’s most influential essays on immigrant multiculturalism, indigenous rights, nationalism, race relations, American multiculturalism, and cosmopolitanism, alongside a response to critics of his earlier work in Multicultural Citizenship ( Kymlicka 1995 , cited in Theories of Multiculturalism ).

Modood, Tariq. Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea . 2d ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2013.

An intriguing defense of multiculturalism as a mode of integration that promotes equality between the members of minority and majority cultures. Also seeks to move questions of immigrant-driven diversity and the secular-religious divide more squarely to the center of multicultural theory, focusing in particular on the accommodation and integration of Muslim migrants in Europe.

Murphy, Michael. Multiculturalism: A Critical Introduction . Routledge Contemporary Political Philosophy. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge, 2012.

A highly accessible introduction that critically examines the work of many of the most influential champions and critics of multiculturalism, while defending a contextualist and civic approach to multicultural accommodation. Includes chapters on toleration and the rights of internal minorities, the impact of multicultural policies on citizenship and social cohesion, the role of culture and cultural relativism in multicultural theory, and a useful typology of multicultural policies.

Tully, James. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity . John Robert Seeley Lectures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139170888

Rejecting the Eurocentric biases of modern liberal constitutionalism, Tully defends a philosophy and practice of diverse constitutionalism wherein participants seek agreement on just terms of political association by means of an intercultural dialogue that recognizes and respects their culturally diverse ways of being and acting in the world. Devotes particular attention to the struggles of indigenous peoples for land rights and self-determination.

Tully, James. Public Philosophy in a New Key . Vol. 1, Democracy and Civic Freedom . Ideas in Context 93. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511790744

Part of a two-volume work presenting Tully’s distinctive approach to legal and political theory. Vol. 1 contains several first-rate chapters on identity politics, indigenous self-determination, and multinational democracies.

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.

In this classic work, Young critiques the predominant distributive conception of liberal justice for its failure to adequately address the plight of cultural minorities and other marginalized social groups. Her own alternative conception of justice is informed by a politics of difference that seeks to combat majority oppression and domination via democratic inclusion and group-differentiated rights and social policies.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Philosophy »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• A Priori Knowledge
• Abduction and Explanatory Reasoning
• Abstract Objects
• Addams, Jane
• Adorno, Theodor
• Aesthetic Hedonism
• Aesthetics, Analytic Approaches to
• Aesthetics, Continental
• Aesthetics, Environmental
• Aesthetics, History of
• African Philosophy, Contemporary
• Alexander, Samuel
• Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
• Anarchism, Philosophical
• Animal Rights
• Anscombe, G. E. M.
• Anthropic Principle, The
• Anti-Natalism
• Aquinas, Thomas
• Argument Mapping
• Art and Emotion
• Art and Knowledge
• Art and Morality
• Astell, Mary
• Aurelius, Marcus
• Austin, J. L.
• Bacon, Francis
• Bayesianism
• Bergson, Henri
• Berkeley, George
• Biology, Philosophy of
• Bolzano, Bernard
• Boredom, Philosophy of
• British Idealism
• Buber, Martin
• Buddhist Philosophy
• Burge, Tyler
• Business Ethics
• Camus, Albert
• Canterbury, Anselm of
• Carnap, Rudolf
• Cavendish, Margaret
• Chemistry, Philosophy of
• Childhood, Philosophy of
• Chinese Philosophy
• Cognitive Ability
• Cognitive Phenomenology
• Cognitive Science, Philosophy of
• Coherentism
• Communitarianism
• Computational Science
• Computer Science, Philosophy of
• Computer Simulations
• Comte, Auguste
• Conceptual Role Semantics
• Conditionals
• Confirmation
• Connectionism
• Consciousness
• Constructive Empiricism
• Contemporary Hylomorphism
• Contextualism
• Contrastivism
• Cook Wilson, John
• Cosmology, Philosophy of
• Critical Theory
• Culture and Cognition
• Daoism and Philosophy
• Davidson, Donald
• de Beauvoir, Simone
• de Montaigne, Michel
• Decision Theory
• Deleuze, Gilles
• Derrida, Jacques
• Descartes, René
• Descartes, René: Sensory Representations
• Descriptions
• Dewey, John
• Dialetheism
• Disagreement, Epistemology of
• Disjunctivism
• Dispositions
• Divine Command Theory
• Doing and Allowing
• du Châtelet, Emilie
• Dummett, Michael
• Dutch Book Arguments
• Early Modern Philosophy, 1600-1750
• Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought
• Education, Philosophy of
• Engineering, Philosophy and Ethics of
• Environmental Philosophy
• Epistemic Basing Relation
• Epistemic Defeat
• Epistemic Injustice
• Epistemic Justification
• Epistemic Philosophy of Logic
• Epistemology
• Epistemology and Active Externalism
• Epistemology, Bayesian
• Epistemology, Feminist
• Epistemology, Internalism and Externalism in
• Epistemology, Moral
• Epistemology of Education
• Ethical Consequentialism
• Ethical Deontology
• Ethical Intuitionism
• Eugenics and Philosophy
• Events, The Philosophy of
• Evidence-Based Medicine, Philosophy of
• Evidential Support Relation In Epistemology, The
• Evolutionary Debunking Arguments in Ethics
• Evolutionary Epistemology
• Experimental Philosophy
• Explanations of Religion
• Extended Mind Thesis, The
• Externalism and Internalism in the Philosophy of Mind
• Faith, Conceptions of
• Feminist Philosophy
• Feyerabend, Paul
• Fichte, Johann Gottlieb
• Fictionalism
• Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Film, Philosophy of
• Foot, Philippa
• Foreknowledge
• Forgiveness
• Formal Epistemology
• Foucault, Michel
• Frege, Gottlob
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg
• Geometry, Epistemology of
• God and Possible Worlds
• God, Arguments for the Existence of
• God, The Existence and Attributes of
• Grice, Paul
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Hart, H. L. A.
• Heaven and Hell
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Aesthetics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Metaphysics
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of History
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich: Philosophy of Politics
• Heidegger, Martin: Early Works
• Hermeneutics
• Higher Education, Philosophy of
• History, Philosophy of
• Hobbes, Thomas
• Horkheimer, Max
• Human Rights
• Hume, David: Aesthetics
• Hume, David: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Husserl, Edmund
• Idealizations in Science
• Identity in Physics
• Imagination
• Imagination and Belief
• Immanuel Kant: Political and Legal Philosophy
• Impossible Worlds
• Incommensurability in Science
• Indian Philosophy
• Indispensability of Mathematics
• Inductive Reasoning
• Instruments in Science
• Intellectual Humility
• Intentionality, Collective
• James, William
• Japanese Philosophy
• Kant and the Laws of Nature
• Kant, Immanuel: Aesthetics and Teleology
• Kant, Immanuel: Ethics
• Kant, Immanuel: Theoretical Philosophy
• Kierkegaard, Søren
• Knowledge-first Epistemology
• Knowledge-How
• Kristeva, Julia
• Kuhn, Thomas S.
• Lacan, Jacques
• Lakatos, Imre
• Langer, Susanne
• Language of Thought
• Language, Philosophy of
• Latin American Philosophy
• Laws of Nature
• Legal Epistemology
• Legal Philosophy
• Legal Positivism
• Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm
• Levinas, Emmanuel
• Lewis, C. I.
• Literature, Philosophy of
• Locke, John
• Locke, John: Identity, Persons, and Personal Identity
• Lottery and Preface Paradoxes, The
• Machiavelli, Niccolò
• Martin Heidegger: Later Works
• Martin Heidegger: Middle Works
• Material Constitution
• Mathematical Explanation
• Mathematical Pluralism
• Mathematical Structuralism
• Mathematics, Ontology of
• Mathematics, Philosophy of
• Mathematics, Visual Thinking in
• McDowell, John
• McTaggart, John
• Meaning of Life, The
• Mechanisms in Science
• Medically Assisted Dying
• Medicine, Contemporary Philosophy of
• Medieval Logic
• Medieval Philosophy
• Mental Causation
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
• Meta-epistemological Skepticism
• Metaepistemology
• Metametaphysics
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysical Grounding
• Metaphysics, Contemporary
• Metaphysics, Feminist
• Midgley, Mary
• Mill, John Stuart
• Mind, Metaphysics of
• Modal Epistemology
• Models and Theories in Science
• Montesquieu
• Moore, G. E.
• Moral Contractualism
• Moral Naturalism and Nonnaturalism
• Moral Responsibility
• Multiculturalism
• Murdoch, Iris
• Music, Analytic Philosophy of
• Nationalism
• Natural Kinds
• Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics
• Naïve Realism
• Neo-Confucianism
• Neuroscience, Philosophy of
• Nietzsche, Friedrich
• Nonexistent Objects
• Normative Ethics
• Normative Foundations, Philosophy of Law:
• Normativity and Social Explanation
• Objectivity
• Occasionalism
• Ontological Dependence
• Ontology of Art
• Ordinary Objects
• Other Minds
• Panpsychism
• Particularism in Ethics
• Pascal, Blaise
• Paternalism
• Peirce, Charles Sanders
• Perception, Cognition, Action
• Perception, The Problem of
• Perfectionism
• Persistence
• Personal Identity
• Phenomenal Concepts
• Phenomenal Conservatism
• Phenomenology
• Philosophy for Children
• Photography, Analytic Philosophy of
• Physicalism
• Physicalism and Metaphysical Naturalism
• Physics, Experiments in
• Political Epistemology
• Political Obligation
• Political Philosophy
• Popper, Karl
• Pornography and Objectification, Analytic Approaches to
• Practical Knowledge
• Practical Moral Skepticism
• Practical Reason
• Probabilistic Representations of Belief
• Probability, Interpretations of
• Problem of Divine Hiddenness, The
• Problem of Evil, The
• Propositions
• Psychology, Philosophy of
• Quine, W. V. O.
• Racist Jokes
• Rationalism
• Rationality
• Rawls, John: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Realism and Anti-Realism
• Realization
• Reasons in Epistemology
• Reductionism in Biology
• Reference, Theory of
• Reid, Thomas
• Reliabilism
• Religion, Philosophy of
• Religious Belief, Epistemology of
• Religious Experience
• Religious Pluralism
• Ricoeur, Paul
• Risk, Philosophy of
• Rorty, Richard
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
• Rule-Following
• Russell, Bertrand
• Ryle, Gilbert
• Sartre, Jean-Paul
• Schopenhauer, Arthur
• Science and Religion
• Science, Theoretical Virtues in
• Scientific Explanation
• Scientific Progress
• Scientific Realism
• Scientific Representation
• Scientific Revolutions
• Scotus, Duns
• Self-Knowledge
• Sellars, Wilfrid
• Semantic Externalism
• Semantic Minimalism
• Senses, The
• Sensitivity Principle in Epistemology
• Shepherd, Mary
• Singular Thought
• Situated Cognition
• Situationism and Virtue Theory
• Skepticism, Contemporary
• Skepticism, History of
• Slurs, Pejoratives, and Hate Speech
• Smith, Adam: Moral and Political Philosophy
• Social Aspects of Scientific Knowledge
• Social Epistemology
• Social Identity
• Sounds and Auditory Perception
• Space and Time
• Speech Acts
• Spinoza, Baruch
• Stebbing, Susan
• Strawson, P. F.
• Structural Realism
• Supererogation
• Supervenience
• Tarski, Alfred
• Technology, Philosophy of
• Testimony, Epistemology of
• Theoretical Terms in Science
• Thomas Aquinas' Philosophy of Religion
• Thought Experiments
• Time and Tense
• Time Travel
• Transcendental Arguments
• Truth and the Aim of Belief
• Truthmaking
• Turing Test
• Two-Dimensional Semantics
• Understanding
• Uniqueness and Permissiveness in Epistemology
• Utilitarianism
• Value of Knowledge
• Vienna Circle
• Virtue Epistemology
• Virtue Ethics
• Virtues, Epistemic
• Virtues, Intellectual
• Voluntarism, Doxastic
• Weakness of Will
• Weil, Simone
• William of Ockham
• Williams, Bernard
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Early Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Later Works
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Middle Works
• Wollstonecraft, Mary
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Culture

Essay Samples on Multiculturalism

When one starts looking through the possible topics to write about multiculturalism, it quickly becomes one of the most interesting tasks to explore. You can write about the traditions, religious backgrounds of certain communities, discuss music, theater, and the movies that are well-known internationally. If you want to receive good grades for your paper, remember to keep within the academic writing structure of the “Introduction-Body-Conclusion” pattern. If this sounds odd to you, check out our free multiculturalism essay sample that explains it all in practice. Pay attention to how the sources have been used to support the ideas and replicate it as you write or compose an outline. Do not forget that writing about multiculturalism for an explanatory essay must keep a neutral tone unless your grading rubric tells otherwise!

The Mosaic of Asian Culture: Understanding the Diversity

Southeast Asia is the geographical southeastern subregion of Asia, cohering of the regions that are south of China, southeast of the Indian landmass, and northwest of Australia. Southeast Asia is rich in culture and the whole host of different languages. The geographers called Southeast Asia...

• Multiculturalism

The Problem Of Complete Immigrant Assimilation

When immigrating to a new country, is there a middle ground between complete abandonment of one’s culture and acclimating to a new environment? Migrants and refugees coming to America already have to face countless challenges. Why should sacrificing their own culture be another one of...

• Integration and Assimilation

Integration Of Immigrants And Multicultural Society In England

In November 2005 John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, stated that “Multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me: let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture at all tell us its glories, its struggles, its joys, its...

The Concept of New Definition of Animal Culture

The question of whether or not animals have and display culture has been a longstanding discussion which, through many years, has produced many theories. One of these theories is that only animals with larger cranial capacities, such as non-human primates, are capable of learning and...

• Culture and Communication

My Response to Arts Philanthropy

Arts and culture philanthropy is, by all means, a beneficial cause that seeks to promote the growth and development of the arts in general and particular forms of art or cultures specifically. In this way, it serves as an avenue through which the community or...

• Philanthropy
• Racial Segregation

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Cultural Appropriation Is Merely Illusion

According to Cambridge Dictionary, culture is defined as the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time. Examples of cultural elements are cuisine, social habits, music, arts, symbol, religion, traditions, language, and fashion. While,...

• Cultural Appropriation
• Cultural Diversity

English Language Dialects in Multicultural Education

Quite often when I travel to a new destination whether it be in the United States, or an entirely new country, the English language alone has several different dialects. Focusing on the United States only, “there are more than two dozen dialects of English, from...

The Impact of Cultural Diversity and Competence on Speech Therapy Treatment

Literature Review “Multiculturalism is often used to refer to one or more particular minority, racial, and/or ethnic groups in the United States” (Stockman, Boult, & Robinson, 2004). Using the word ‘multicultural’ refers to the wide range of co-existing cultural groups within society. Due to the...

• Cultural Competence

Cross-Linguistics Between Vietnamese and English in Bilingual Participants

Abstract Currently, in the United States, there are approximately 2 million Vietnamese-Americans. There is a shift in the relative language dominance from the first language (L1) to the second language (L2) of immigrant populations that have come to the United States (Tang, M.G., 2007). Maintaining...

• Bilingualism

Ghosts in Different Cultures and Mass Media

To say ghosts do not exist would be ignorant because there have been many sightings of them and have been spotted in multiple countries. This idea is based on the ancient tale of a person’s spirit existing separately from their body and continue until death....

Negative Impact of Cultural Relativism in Zimbabwe

Although cultural relativism prior to the mid‐1950s was a construct employed by both Western anthropologists and indigenous peoples to resist European initiatives for cultural hegemony, since decolonization, the concept has been appropriated by third world bourgeois‐nationalist elites to undermine pre‐colonial rights of members of various...

• Cultural Anthropology
• Cultural Relativism

To Be Or Not To Be Or Problem Of The Multicultural Society

The multicultural society denotes all the different ethnic groups that coexist in one society. Individuals in a multicultural society can often come across an overwhelming challenge, which is finding their own identity and personal individuality. Finding yourself among millions of different identities may give you...

• Personality

Chinatown in Toronto, Multicultural Megalopolis

Toronto is widely known for its multicultural diversity. There are many different cultures which have resided in this city, creating ethnic enclaves throughout. Throughout this essay, I will specifically be focusing on changes occurring within Chinatown. Toronto consists of many Chinatowns that have been removed,...

Analysis Of The Relevance And Impact Of A Multicultural Approach

Globally, the discourse about Multiculturalism has surfaced and can no longer be ignored in our Arab world. Nations worldwide are trying to come to terms with this growing diversity, trying to find workable solutions that would help gain a sense of control over their borders,...

Architectural Education Today: Cross Cultural Perspectives

Notably, we have stated above that social sports are one of the cultural factors and they influence exceptionally on any architectural design and its improvement. As we all recognise, the traditional varieties of producing and developing architectural designs started to decrease due to the emergency...

• Modern Architecture

Cultural Adaptations In My Life

Twelve years of schooling in ten different schools in two countries was vital to shape me as a person I am today. Life has been a fairy tale adventure. Everyone who has heard my story often came up with the same question on how did...

• Adaptability
• Cultural Identity

Multicultural Perspective In My Clinical Work As A Psychologist

I believe it is vital to embrace a multicultural perspective when working in the field of psychology. This has been essential in my work with underserved populations and every client I work with, because we all operate within a cultural context. At the University of...

• Developmental Psychology

The Significance of Multiculturalism and Cultural Diversity in the 21st Century

Multiculturalism and cultural diversity have been given a tremendous amount of importance in the 21st century. Individuals, states and, global corporations take advantage of diversity by using the different beliefs and ideas presented as new discoveries which allows current issues to be solved innovatively. The...

The Importance For Teacher To Become A Multicultural Person

We need to have enthusiasm and to incorporate a multicultural philosophy in our teaching. We sometimes forget that our classrooms are made up of young people who usually know very little about their own culture or those of their classmates. Without this transformation of ourselves,...

The Importance Of Multiculturalism In Developing Countries Using Kenya And Canada

Introduction: Multiculturalism is defined as a way of different cultures and races coming together and respecting and learning each other’s traditions and values for the growth of ideas and betterment of lifestyle and the nation. This idea of multiculturalism brings different communities and cultures together...

Best topics on Multiculturalism

1. The Mosaic of Asian Culture: Understanding the Diversity

2. The Problem Of Complete Immigrant Assimilation

3. Integration Of Immigrants And Multicultural Society In England

4. The Concept of New Definition of Animal Culture

5. My Response to Arts Philanthropy

6. Cultural Appropriation Is Merely Illusion

7. English Language Dialects in Multicultural Education

8. The Impact of Cultural Diversity and Competence on Speech Therapy Treatment

9. Cross-Linguistics Between Vietnamese and English in Bilingual Participants

10. Ghosts in Different Cultures and Mass Media

11. Negative Impact of Cultural Relativism in Zimbabwe

12. To Be Or Not To Be Or Problem Of The Multicultural Society

13. Chinatown in Toronto, Multicultural Megalopolis

14. Analysis Of The Relevance And Impact Of A Multicultural Approach

15. Architectural Education Today: Cross Cultural Perspectives

• Asian American Culture
• Rites of Passage
• African Masquerades
• Punjabi Culture
• Chinese Culture
• Japanese Culture

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

Multiculturalism: A Critical Introduction

Michael Murphy, Multiculturalism: A Critical Introduction , Routledge, 2012, 196pp., $35.95 (pbk), ISBN 9780415260435.

Reviewed by Brady Heiner, California State University, Fullerton

Michael Murphy takes on the challenge of providing a concise critical introduction to multiculturalism -- a subject whose terrain and terminologies remain analytically confused, culturally entangled, and deeply contested (Hall, Ponzanesi). Indeed, the proliferation of diverse and contradictory uses of the concept in academic, policy, and mass media discourses, especially since 9/11, confirm what postcolonial, literary, and critical race theorists have argued about "multiculturalism" for fifteen years: that it has become a "conceptual grab bag" with "elastic boundaries" and "a corresponding dilution of content" (Mills 2007, p. 89), a "floating" or "empty signifier" onto which "a range of groups project their fears and hopes" (Bhabha, p. 31; Gunew, p. 19), "an incoherent concept, which cannot be meaningfully either affirmed or rejected" (Fish, p. 78; quoted in Murphy, p. 12).

"Multiculturalism" refers to anything from the cultural and political discourses and practices of foreign nationals and immigrants, to those of racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, and subnational minorities; from the social characteristics and problems of governance posed by any society composed of different cultural communities, to issues of tertiary education and curriculum reform; from the strategies and policies adopted to govern or manage the problems of diversity and multiplicity that multicultural societies engender, to the normative justifications of those strategies and policies (Bhabha, Hall, Sharma). Not only do the descriptive, normative, and legal senses of multiculturalism frequently get conflated -- a problem that leads Murphy to spend nearly a quarter of the book engaging in what he calls "philosophical brush-clearing" (p. 28). It's also the case that the literature on multiculturalism is vast, multidisciplinary, theoretically fragmented, and (as one might expect) developed and focused in disparate ways in different countries.

To "bring a sense of clarity and coherence" to this complexly contested field of discourse, Murphy "follow[s] the methodology of Wittgenstein, by seeking to understand how the term 'multiculturalism' has been used in actual philosophical debates," and he adopts two "organizational strategies" to make this task "more manageable" (pp. 6, 13, 62). First, he organizes the discussion around different types of arguments that recur in the literature, rather than focusing on the theoretical trajectories of particular philosophers. Second, he focuses mainly on the ideas of "some of the more influential multiculturalists [and critics], whose work is broadly representative of the diversity of perspectives and approaches in the field," trying, in good multicultural fashion, "to be as inclusive as possible" (p. 62).

Regrettably, the book is not nearly as broadly representative of the diversity of perspectives and approaches in the field as it purports (and ought) to be, especially given its representative pedagogical aims. Murphy docks multiculturalism on a rather exclusive island of Anglo-American political philosophy. The book is thus not, as it claims and as one might infer from the title, a critical introduction to  multicultural  political philosophy. Nor does it reflect the kind of methodological pluralism and cross-disciplinarity that the subject demands.

A more apt, though admittedly less marketable, title for the volume would be  An Introduction to Anglo-American Liberal Political Philosophy of Multiculturalism . For, with the exception of passing reference to Seyla Benhabib and engagement with the works of Iris Young, the book almost entirely ignores relevant literatures from critical theory, continental philosophy, and pragmatism (e.g., Balibar, Brown 1995, 2006, Butler 1998, Fraser and Honneth, Goldberg, Willett, Žižek). It also disregards or marginalizes foundational critical perspectives from area studies and intersectional analyses from postcolonial theory, critical race theory, queer theory, and feminist philosophy that exceed the framework of liberalism (e.g., Blasius, Blum, Chakrabarty, Crenshaw, Davis, Ford, Gooding-Williams, Guha, Gunew, Hancock, Mills 2007, Mohanty, Morris, Narayan and Harding, Ortega and Alcoff,Pateman, Pateman and Mills, Takaki, Vasta and Castles, Williams). [1]  Furthermore, it overlooks notable political philosophers of color working from within the liberal tradition on issues of race and reparative or corrective justice (e.g., Boxill 1972, 1984, 2003; Corlett 2003, 2010; McGary; Roberts) -- a germane aspect of the debate about "multicultural accommodation," which runs through Murphy's text, that is hastily dismissed (esp. pp. 103-11, 118-27).

Strategic selection and omission are, of course, the stock-in-trade of single-authored introductory textbooks of this kind. However, the text's organizational and methodological framework and the way it defines, delineates, and situates the field -- in addition to the omissions just mentioned -- are philosophically problematic, in my view, and they lessen the text's value as a pedagogical resource. I'll substantiate this criticism in the degree of depth that this forum permits. But first, I'll lay out the structure of the book and point to some of its notable strengths.

Strengths and Structural Overview

Murphys'  Multiculturalism  begins with three introductory chapters. The first chapter is schematic. It enumerates the three core issues of multiculturalist political philosophy around which later chapters are organized (i.e., equal consideration and justice, the limits of multicultural accommodation, and cultivating social cohesion in diversity). It sketches four impediments to clear debate on the pitfalls and benefits of multiculturalism (including the failure to acknowledge perspectival diversity within the political philosophy of multiculturalism, and the failure to distinguish multiculturalism as a political philosophy from the multicultural policies adopted by particular states and institutions). And it concludes with a one-page outline of the book.

The second chapter aims to succinctly lay to rest three alleged misconceptions about the relation between multiculturalism and cultural difference that are held to "impede productive debate" (p. 28): (1) the  cultural essentialism misconception , which is the notion that multiculturalism is tethered to an untenable and potentially harmful doctrine of cultural essentialism; (2)  the radical moral relativism misconception , which holds that multiculturalism is a recipe for radical moral relativism; and (3) the  politics of distraction misconception , the charge, advanced principally by theorists engaged in struggles against racial and economic injustice, that multiculturalism necessarily entails a myopic focus on objective cultural differences (i.e., beliefs, practices, traditions, languages, lifestyles) to the exclusion of racial, gender, and sexual domination, and socioeconomic injustice.

Murphy adeptly disarms (1). Reconstructing Jeremy Waldron's cosmopolitan argument about the intrinsic cross-fertilization, intermixing, and temporal instability of culture, Murphy drives home the point -- originally made by poststructuralist and postcolonialist theories (from which the logic of Waldron's argument derives, [2]  but which are absent from Murphy's text) -- that cultural identity is, in Rey Chow's words, "always already mediated by the slow but indismissible labor of temporality." Or, as Judith Butler phrased it vis-à-vis gender, "identity is a stylized repetition of acts through time, and not a seemingly seamless identity." To demand that subjects or cultural communities manifest and maintain self-identity at all times is to participate in ethical or political violence (Chow, p. 176; Butler 1990, p. 192; 2005, p. 42; Anzaldúa; Blasius; Collins; Hall 1990; Lugones).

Murphy also dispenses with (2). He distinguishes between moral anti-foundationalism and radical moral relativism, and persuasively argues that the former position, which most multiculturalists adopt, does not necessarily entail the latter, which most multiculturalists reject. With respect to the  politics of distraction  charge, however, Murphy's  Multiculturalism remains fraught. While Murphy is right to argue that multicultural political philosophy does not  necessarily  involve an evasion or obfuscation of racial, gender, and sexual domination -- and  critical  multiculturalisms certainly do not -- the introduction to this  Critical Introduction  explicitly excludes these categories of analysis from the scope of the book. Designating such analytic categories as "specialized themes," Murphy maintains that to substantively include them in a critical introduction "would either require a much longer book or a thinning of the existing analysis to the point where it would no longer serve anyone's purposes" (pp. 5, 7). Thus, Murphy's text itself performs the very exclusions and "theoretical vanishing-act[s]" on account of which critical race theorists decry the conventional categories of multiculturalism (Mills 2007, p. 104; Blum; Ford, p. 45). The problems that this evasion generates will be the subject of my concluding critique.

Chapter three provides a welcome typology of common multicultural policies, offering seven categories: voice, symbolic recognition, redistribution, protection, exemptions, assistance, and autonomy. Discussion of each category provides a general description and series of concrete policy examples, the purposes they are intended to serve, the types of justification to which they are subject, and the types of groups to which they are addressed. The close connection constructed throughout the book between philosophical principles and arguments, on the one hand, and comparative governmental policies, on the other, is among its greatest strengths, as it regularly invites readers to explore the political and legal implications of the theories under consideration. Foregrounding the common range of policies adopted by various governments in response to diversity within their borders prioritizes this bridgework between theory and policy. Absent from this bridgework, however, are rich connections to political practices, especially minority social justice activism and social movements beyond the horizon of the state.

Chapter four, a transitional chapter, traces the intellectual origins of multiculturalist political philosophy to the breakdown of the liberal-communitarian debate that had dominated Anglo-American liberal political philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the genealogy that this chapter provides is symptomatic of what I take to be the book's underlying inadequacy, I will save further comment on it for my concluding critical remarks.

The heart of the book, chapters five through eight, focuses on what the text refers to as "the philosophical champions of multiculturalism," a circle centered around Will Kymlicka,Chandran Kukathas, Bhikhu Parekh, and Charles Taylor, and some of their critics (Brian Barry and Susan Okin most prominently, but also James Tully and Iris Young, among others). The champions first defend multiculturalism, in chapter five, via what Murphy categorizes into seven types of argument: liberal culturalism, tolerationist multiculturalism, the value of cultural diversity, the politics of inclusion, deliberative multiculturalism, democratic multinationalism, and the politics of recognition. Then the champions meet critics in debates organized around the three core issues enumerated early on in the book: equal consideration and justice (chapter six), the limits of multicultural accommodation (chapter seven), and cultivating social cohesion in diversity (chapter eight).

These chapters, like most of the book, are exceptionally clear in their organization. Arguments are coherently rendered and classified, policy examples are readily and demonstratively referenced, and the prose succeeds in constructing a very coherent, pleasurable -- what Roland Barthes might have called a "readerly" -- narrative replete with expert summary conclusions in each chapter.

Chapter nine ends the book with a welcome introduction to methodological contextualism, exemplified by Joseph Carens'  Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness  (2000). Organized around two case studies (language laws in Quebec, and the controversy surrounding the representation of the Prophet Muhammad in a series of Danish political cartoons in 2005), the chapter aims to articulate and illustrate the benefits of grounding multicultural political philosophy in the realities of specific political problems and contexts. The strength of this chapter is not only that it breathes some life into the practical political stakes of multicultural political philosophy. It also allows normative theorizing about multiculturalism to be guided by concrete struggles. However, the chapter is unfortunately organized like an applied ethics debate textbook, with a description of each case followed by arguments "for" and "against." While this format could be viewed as a strength by the instructor wishing to stage a debate among students, like all such formats, it arguably encourages binary, adversarial thinking about contemporary social and political issues.

Critical Remarks

The text's analytical disregard of differences such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and their intersecting systems of domination is concurrent with its disengagement from critical theories of postcolonialism and feminism. This omission produces a series of problematic symptoms, two of which I will briefly address.

First, Murphy's text distances itself from and reifies minority discourses of critique and activist demand even when it seeks to overcome that distance. For example, contextualist political philosophy, as Murphy indicates in the final substantive chapter, has sought to overcome the excessive degree of theoretical abstraction that has plagued much of twentieth-century Anglo-American political philosophy. This distance from concrete struggles and injustices, he writes, "was undermining [political philosophy's] persuasive power and its relevance to public policy and institutional design" (p. 129). One of the aspirations of contextualist political philosophy is thus to be "more sensitive to the specific  claims , characteristics and circumstances of different cultural minorities" (ibid., my emphasis). While this is a welcome departure from "ideal" methods of political theorizing that, as a matter of principle, exclude, or at least marginalize, such actualities from critical interrogation (Mills 2005, Tessman), the way that Murphy's text articulates this aim reinscribes the very distance it is intended to overcome.

The objective of contextualist political philosophy is described as one of being "more  empirically  informed," closer to "the  facts  on the ground" (ibid., my emphasis). Such philosophy would then, we are told, attend to minority demands,  qua  "facts," and theorize how they "could be justified and accommodated in policy terms" (ibid.). Murphy erroneously categorizes minority discourses of critique and activist demand as  empirical facts  to be extrinsically "justified" by theory and "accommodated" by policy rather than as  normative and theoretical discourses  in their own right -- discourses to be addressed at the level of the concepts and values they articulate, the justifications they offer in support of those values, and the norms for governance they propose. The methodological exclusion of these perspectives  qua  normative discourses at the outset, facilitates their reification in the belated attempt to contextually incorporate them. Put bluntly, it's difficult to ultimately overcome the "distance" between Anglo-American multicultural political philosophy and the specific claims, characteristics, and circumstances of different cultural minorities so long as that philosophy excludes those claims and perspectives from its conceptual horizons on account of a "lack of space" (pp. 129, 62, 7). Here, as elsewhere, the methodological and organizational framework of Murphy's text forecloses the possibility for genuine recognition of and dialogue with marginalized and oppressed groups, and the theoretical and practical (including policy) innovation which could result from that dialogue.

A second, related problem with Murphy's text is that it is animated by what postcolonial theorist Homi Bhabha calls a  nondifferential  concept of cultural time :

It is not that liberalism does not recognize racial or sexual discrimination -- it has been in the forefront of those struggles. But there is a recurrent problem with its notion of equality: liberalism contains a  nondifferential  concept of cultural time . At the point at which liberal discourse attempts to normalise cultural respect into the recognition of equal cultural worth, it does not recognize the disjunctive, 'borderline,' temporalities of partial, minority cultures. The sharing of equality is genuinely intended, but only so long as we start from a historically congruent space; the recognition of difference is genuinely felt, but on terms that do not represent the historical genealogies, often postcolonial, that constitute the partial cultures of the minority. (Bhabha, p. 32; my emphasis)

Murphy's terms do not represent the historical, postcolonial, post-enslavement genealogies that constitute many of the minority cultures at issue in his discussion. In fact, in Murphy's 150-page book (196 pages with notes, bibliography, and index), histories of colonization and domination are only generically intimated in but a handful of references when not obfuscated by euphemisms such as, for example, the suggestion that dominant majority groups and "ethnonational minority communities," such as indigenous peoples, have been "thrown together by historical circumstances" (p. 125). [3]  This eclipse of European imperialism enables Murphy, in chapter four, to trace the intellectual origins of multicultural political philosophy not to the claims, concepts, and normative trajectories of the many (antiracist, anticapitalist, anticolonial, queer, indigenous, feminist) social movements of the early- to mid-twentieth century and their refugees in the diaspora. Rather, he traces those intellectual origins to "the many refugees [ sic! ] from the liberal-communitarian debate that so dominated western political philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s" (p. 46). As such, Murphy's  Multiculturalism  advances an ethnocentric, methodologically parochial account of the philosophy of multiculturalism that renders invisible the way that it has been shaped by colonial histories -- what Sneja Gunew calls the "colonial seeds of multiculturalism" -- and forecloses the possibility for genuine recognition of and dialogue with marginalized and oppressed groups (Gunew, p. 33).

To those who might object that many of the references I've criticized Murphy for disregarding in his volume are not works of political philosophy, but rather history, social, cultural, and legal theory, I would reply that the topic and task of critical multicultural or postcolonial political philosophy requires an openness to the multicultural questioning and redrawing of the traditional methodological, disciplinary, and thematic horizons of western political philosophy. The strict -- strictly western, white, masculine, heteronormative -- conception of political philosophy is precisely that which a genuinely critical multiculturalism calls upon us to "provincialize" (Brown 1988; Chakrabarty; Dotson; Mills 1997, 1998, 2005; Pateman; Patemanand Mills; Smith).

Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987.  Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza . San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.

Balibar, Etienne. 2003.  We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship . Trans. James Swenson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Barthes, Roland. 1974.  S/Z: An Essay . Translated by Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang.

Benhabib, Seyla. 2002.  The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bhabha, Homi. 1998. "Culture's in Between." In  Multicultural States -- Rethinking Difference and Identity. Edited by  David Bennett. London: Routledge: 29-36.

Blasius, Mark (ed). 2001.  Sexual Identities, Queer Politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Blum, Lawrence. 1994. "Multiculturalism, Racial Justice, and Community: Reflections on Charles Taylor's 'Politics of Recognition.'" In  Defending Diversity: Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives on Pluralism and Multiculturalism . Edited by Lawrence Foster and Patricia Herzog. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Boxill, Bernard R. 1972. "The Morality of Reparation."  Social Theory and Practice  2.1

-- -- -- -. 1984.  Blacks and Social Justice . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

-- -- -- -. 2003. "The Morality of Reparations II." In  A Companion to African-American Philosophy . Edited by Tommy Lott and John Pittman. Malden, MA: Blackwell..

Brown, Wendy. 1995.  States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-- -- -- -. 1988.  Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading in Political Theory . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

2006.  Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Butler, Judith. 1990/2006.  Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.  New York: Routledge Classics.

-- -- -- -. 1998. "Reply to Robert Gooding-Williams."  Constellations  5.1: 42-47.

-- -- -- -. 2005.  Giving an Account of Oneself .  Fordham University Press.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000.  Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.  Princeton University Press.

Chow, Rey. 2002. "The Interruption of Referentiality: Poststructuralism and the Conundrum of Critical Multiculturalism."  South Atlantic Quarterly  101.1: 171-186.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. "Some Group Matters: Intersectionality, Situated Standpoints, and Black Feminist Thought." In  Fighting Words: Black Women and The Search   for Justice. University of Minnesota Press: pp. 201 -- 28.

Corlett, J. Angelo. 2003.  Race, Racism, and Reparations . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

-- -- -- -. 2010.  Heirs of Oppression . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 2000 [1989]. "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics." In  The Black Feminist Reader . Edited by Joy James and T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Davis, Angela Y. 1981.  Women, Race, and Class . New York: Random House.

Dotson, Kristie. 2012. "How is this Paper Philosophy?"  Comparative Philosophy  3.1: 3-29.

Fish, Stanley. 1998. "Boutique Multiculturalism." In  Multiculturalism and American Democracy.  Edited by A.M. Melzer, J. Weinberger, and M.R. Zinman. Lawrence, KA: University Press of Kansas.

Ford, Richard T. 2005.  Racial Culture: A Critique.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth. 2003.  Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange . London: Verso.

Goldberg, David Theo (ed.). 1994.  Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Gooding-Williams, Robert. 1998. "Race, Multiculturalism and Democracy."  Constellations  5.1: 18 -- 41.

Guha, Ranajit (ed.). 1997.  A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995 . University of Minnesota Press.

Gunew, Sneja. 2004.  Haunted Nations: The Colonial Dimension of Multiculturalisms . New York: Routledge.

Hall, Stuart. 1990. "Cultural Identity and Diaspora." In  Identity: Community, Culture, Difference . Edited by Jonathan Rutherford. Lawrence and Wishart: pp. 222-37.

-- -- -- -. 2000. "Conclusion: The Multicultural Question." In  Un/settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements,   Transruptions . Edited by Barnor Hesse. London: Zed Books: pp. 209 -- 41.

Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. "Intersectionality as a Normative and Empirical Paradigm."  Politics & Gender  3.2: 248-253.

Lugones, María. 1994. "Purity, Impurity, and Separation."  Signs  19: 458 -- 79.

McGary, Howard. 1999.  Race and Social Justice . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Mills, Charles W. 1997.  The Racial Contract.  Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

-- -- -- -. 1998.  Blackness Visible: Essays on Philosophy and Race . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

-- -- -- -. 2005. "'Ideal Theory' as Ideology."  Hypatia : A Journal of Feminist Philosophy  20.3: 165-184.

-- -- -- -. 2007. "Multiculturalism as/and/or Anti-Racism?" In  Multiculturalism and Political Theory. Edited by  Anthony Simon Laden and David Owen. New York: Cambridge University Press: pp. 89-114.

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003.  Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity . Durham: Duke University Press.

Morris, Rosalind. 2010.  Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea.  Columbia University Press.

Narayan, Uma and Sandra Harding (eds.). 2000.  Decentering the Center: Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Ortega, Mariana and Linda Martín Alcoff. 2009.  Constructing the Nation: A Race and Nationalism Reader . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pateman, Carol. 1988.  The Sexual Contract . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Pateman, Carol and Charles W. Mills. 2007.  Contract and Domination . Cambridge: Polity.

Ponzanesi, Sandra. 2007. "Feminist Theory and Multiculturalism."  Feminist Theory  8.1: 91-103.

Roberts, Rodney C. (ed.). 2002.  Injustice and Rectification . New York: Peter Lang.

Sharma, Ashwani. 2006. " Shooting the Brazilian: White Anxiety and the Terrors of Multiculturalism ."  Rising East . Issue 4(Accessed 10 Aug 2012).

Smith, Justin E. H. 2012. " Philosophy's Western Bias ."  The New York Times. The Stone , June 3.

Takaki, Ronald. 1993.  A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America . Little, Brown, and Co.

Tessman, Lisa (ed.). 2009.  Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal . New York: Springer.

Vasta, Ellie and Stephen Castles. 1996.  The Teeth Are Smiling: The Persistence of Racism in Multicultural Australia.  St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. "Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative." In  The Rights of Minority Cultures . Edited by Will Kymlicka. Oxford University Press: pp. 93-119.

Whyte, Kyle P. 2012. "Now This! Indigenous Sovereignty, Political Obliviousness and Governance Models for SRM Research."  Ethics, Policy & Environment  15.2: 172-187.

Willett, Cynthia (ed.). 1998.  Theorizing Multiculturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Williams, Patricia J. 1992.  The Alchemy of Race and Rights . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Žižek, Slavoj. 1997. "Multiculturalism, or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism."  New Left Review  225: 28 -- 51.

[1]  The work of Susan Miller Okin is discussed as one of two critical perspectives in chapter seven, "The Limits of Multicultural Accommodation," pp. 96-101.

[2]  The article of Waldron's upon which Murphy's argument relies opens with an extended passage from Salman Rushdie, in which Rushdie argues for the hybridity, impurity, and temporal disjunction of cultural identity. Explicating and adopting this conception for his own argument, Waldron writes dismissively: "If I knew what the term meant, I would say it was a 'postmodern' vision of the self. But, as I do not, let me just call it 'cosmopolitan'" (Waldron, p. 95).

[3]  Indigenous philosopher Kyle Whyte refers to obfuscating euphemistic language such as this, specifically when employed to describe indigenous peoples, as "political obliviousness," about which he provides insightful critical analysis (Whyte, pp. 178-182).

Multiculturalism

• Charles Taylor

Before you purchase audiobooks and ebooks

Please note that audiobooks and ebooks purchased from this site must be accessed on the Princeton University Press app. After you make your purchase, you will receive an email with instructions on how to download the app. Learn more about audio and ebooks .

Support your local independent bookstore.

• United States
• United Kingdom

Multiculturalism: Expanded Paperback Edition

• Amy Gutmann
• Kwame Anthony Appiah
• Jürgen Habermas
• Stephen C. Rockefeller
• Michael Walzer
• The University Center for Human Values Series

• Download Cover

A new edition of the highly acclaimed book Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition,” this paperback brings together an even wider range of leading philosophers and social scientists to probe the political controversy surrounding multiculturalism. Charles Taylor’s initial inquiry, which considers whether the institutions of liberal democratic government make room—or should make room—for recognizing the worth of distinctive cultural traditions, remains the centerpiece of this discussion. It is now joined by Jürgen Habermas’s extensive essay on the issues of recognition and the democratic constitutional state and by K. Anthony Appiah’s commentary on the tensions between personal and collective identities, such as those shaped by religion, gender, ethnicity, race, and sexuality, and on the dangerous tendency of multicultural politics to gloss over such tensions. These contributions are joined by those of other well-known thinkers, who further relate the demand for recognition to issues of multicultural education, feminism, and cultural separatism. Praise for the previous edition:

"Original and important.... The essays by Taylor and the other contributors raise the debate to a new level, providing it with the high moral seriousness it deserves."—Lawrence Blum, Boston Review

"Multiculturalism ... is packed with depth, intelligence, and (to revive an old-fashioned word) wisdom.... It is highly relevant to pressing debates about nationalism and its identity."—Michael Saward, The Times Higher Education Supplement

"[Taylor's] comments about multiculturalism in particular demonstrate his knack for finding sensible middle ground between unreasonable extremes.... His writing here is clear, direct, and refreshingly free of philosophical jargon. He is also delightfully nonpartisan."—David McCabe, Commonweal

" Multiculturalism . . . is packed with depth, intelligence, and (to revive an old-fashioned word) wisdom."—Michael Saward, The Times Higher Education Supplement

"[Taylor's] comments about multiculturalism . . . demonstrate his knack for finding sensible middle ground between unreasonable extremes. . . . His writing here is clear, direct, and refreshingly free of philosophical jargon. He is also delightfully nonpartisan."—David McCabe, Commonweal

". . . engaging, thought-provoking, suggestive, full of insights on questions of intellectual history, philosophical and moral psychology, and current issues in political philosophy and practice."— Ethics

"Because it impinges upon so much—from campus speech to bilingual education to the causes and effects of political correctness—the current discussion on multiculturalism is essential to understanding Western academic culture as it exists today (and as it will exist in the future). This book is a valuable guide to the complexities involved."— Washington Times

Stay connected for new books and special offers. Subscribe to receive a welcome discount for your next order. 

Buy a gift card for the book lover in your life and let them choose their next great read.

• ebook & Audiobook Cart

Multiculturalism and Equal Human Dignity: An Essay on Bhikhu Parekh

• Published: 11 March 2011
• Volume 17 , pages 141–156, ( 2011 )

Cite this article

• Joshua Broady Preiss 1  

887 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

Bhikhu Parekh is an internationally renowned political theorist. His work on identity and multiculturalism is unquestionably thoughtful and nuanced, benefiting from a tremendous depth of knowledge of particular cases. Despite his work’s many virtues, however, the normative justification for Parekh’s recommendations is at times vague or ambiguous. In this essay, I argue that a close reading of his work, in particular his magnum opus Rethinking Multiculturalism and the selfproclaimed “sequel” A New Politics of Identity, reveals that his claims frequently rely upon a Kantian account of moral dialogue and indeed moral personhood that he remains unwilling to claim. Recognizing this latent Kantianism is essential to a thorough assessment of Parekh’s work on identity, and his criticisms of other theorists. It is only because of his ambiguity that his multiculturalism is able to avoid the sort of charges that he levels against other responses to diversity, including those of such authors as Rawls, Habermas, Kymlicka, and Raz.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Multiculturalism and Citizenship — The Australian Experience

Multiculturalism and citizenship — the malaysian experience.

Multiculturalism: From Heterogeneities to Social (In)equalities

Witness the persistent Islamophobia, on several continents, in debates over cultural and religious accommodation.

For an extended discussion of issues of minorities within minorities see Eisenberg and Spinner-Halev 2005 .

He adds, ‘Secondly, even if the principles are shown to be universally valid, some might not accept them or, even if they do, they might not feel so committed to them as to be motivated by them in their relation to others… Thirdly, even if they are accepted by all concerned, the abstract universals need to be interpreted, and here people are likely to disagree… universal moral principles have to be balanced, prioritized, and applied to the unique circumstances of specific societies, and that too generates much disagreement. Since such disagreements cannot by definition be resolved by references to the principles themselves, we are left without any guidance’ (Parekh 1999b , p. 166).

Parekh’s use and understanding of ‘operative public values’ is surely influenced by his study of Michael Oakeshott’s anti-universalism, though not in ways that further or undermine the claims made in this essay. It is perhaps notable that Parekh doesn’t reference Oakeshott in his discussion of operative public values. See (Parekh 1995 ) for his review of Oakeshott’s political philosophy.

I am grateful to a reviewer at Res Publica for highlighting this revision.

Why must a society periodically reassess its operative public values? Where does this obligation come from if not a society’s operative public values? I will suggest an answer in the next section.

Other works that emphasize the importance of intergroup dialogue include (Dryzek 2006 ; Bohman 1996 , 2007 ; James 2004 ; Tully 1995 , 2009 ; Benhabib 2002 ).

Which Parekh seems to take as almost self-evident, and not in need of justification.

See Chap. 13 (Parekh 2008a ) for Parekh’s discussion of the universal value of democracy.

I am struck by various conversations I have had with what might be called Conservative Christian Evangelicals (by no means an endangered group in contemporary American society). A common and powerful reason for a claim in these conversations has been a personal knowledge of God’s will. What happens to reasonable discourse if, for example, the statement ‘I see what your saying but that is not what God tells me’ is a legitimate if not irrefutable counterargument?.

Rawls ( 1993 , p. 193). Elsewhere, I argue that Rawls’ account of neutrality of aim, by focusing on illiberal or undemocratic beliefs and practices, fails to consider that there might be good reason to address the potentially preventable bad effects of specific policies of liberal states. States could address these concerns, I argue, by recognizing certain cultural rights claims. Such policies would make political liberal societies more consistent with what Rawls calls the ‘criterion of reciprocity’ (Preiss 2009 ).

For a thorough analysis of the normative foundations of Habermas’ discourse ethics and Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, see Baynes 1992 .

Parekh criticizes Rawls’ claim that the difference principle requires a ‘sense of cohesion’ to be effective, (Parekh 2008a , p. 46). It is not clear, however, that Rawls’ conception of solidarity requires any more than the ‘thin’ set of shared values (Parekh 2008a , p. 83) that underpin Parekh’s model of intercultural dialogue.

By ‘instrumental’ here I don’t mean non-moral. I am simply recognizing that dialogue may be justified in terms of its likely ends, as opposed to a justification by reference to foundational principles.

There is a sense, perhaps not too different from Parekh’s vision of a ‘humane and just world,’ in which Kant’s humanity formulation of the categorical imperative is itself fundamentally concerned with the ends of actions (Wood 1998 ). If what we mean by ‘ends-justified’ theories is interpreted in such a broad and normatively loaded way, then both theorists work from the ends backwards. The parallel holds.

See, in particular, section 87 of A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971 ).

Though the ‘assimilationist wrongly asks for a greater degree and range of unity than is possible or necessary’ (Parekh 2008a , p. 83).

For an argument that the humanity formulation is most central to Kant’s moral philosophy, see (Wood 1998 ).

Which Parekh himself recognizes in his brief discussion of Kantian moral philosophy and children or those with severe learning disabilities (Parekh 2008a , p. 211).

Or reference a positive case of earlier theorists.

Though Kant is perhaps too singularly focused on the human capacity to reason (Parekh 2008a , p. 218).

I wonder how this lexical priority of the impersonal differs in practice from Kymlicka’s liberal restriction, which Parekh criticized at length in Multiculturalism Reconsidered (Parekh 2000 , pp. 100–105).

Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar  

Baynes, Kenneth. 1992. The normative grounds of social criticism: Kant, Rawls, Habermas . Albany: SUNY Press.

Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in a global era . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berman, Sheri. 2006. The primacy of politics: Social democracy and the making of Europe’s twentieth century . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bohman, James. 2007. Democracy across borders: From demos to demoi . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, Joshua. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity , ed. Alan Hamlin, 17–34. New York: Blackwell.

Dryzek, John S. 2006. Deliberative global politics: Discourse and democracy in a divided world . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Eisenberg, Avigail, and Jeff Spinner-Halev. 2005. Minorities within minorities: Equality, rights, and diversity . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1965. Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason (trans: Howard, Robert). New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans: Sheridan, Albert). New York: Vintage Books.

Fraser, Nancy. 2003. Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In Redistribution or recognition: A political-philosophical exchange , ed. Nancy Fraser, and Axel Honneth. New York: Verso Books.

Gitlin, Todd. 1996. The twilight of common dreams: Why America is wracked by culture wars . New York: Metropolitan Books.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order . New York: Simon & Shuster.

Huntington, Samuel. 2001. Who are we? The challenge to America’s national identity . New York: Simon & Shuster.

James, Michael. 2004. Deliberative democracy and the plural polity . Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.

Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Practical philosophy, ed. (trans: Gregor, Mary J.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, Paul. 2010. British political theory in the twentieth century . Oxford, UK: Wiley.

Kymlicka, Will. 1989. Liberalism, community, and culture . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Okin, Susan Moller. 1999. Is multiculturalism bad for women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 1995. Oakeshott’s theory of civil association. Ethics 106(1): 158–186.

Article   Google Scholar  

Parekh, Bhikhu. 1999a. A varied moral world. In Is multiculturalism bad for women? , ed. Susan Moller Okin, 69–75. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 1999b. The logic of cross-cultural evaluation. In Toleration, identity, and difference , ed. John Horton, and Susan Mendus, 163–197. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000 [2006]. Rethinking multiculturalism , 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 2008a. A new politics of identity . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 2008b. Reason and identity. Proceedings of the British Academy 162(1): 301–323.

Parekh, Bhikhu. 2009. Feeling at home: Some reflections on muslims in Europe. Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 8(1): 51–85.

Preiss, Joshua Broady. 2009. Why Brian Barry should be a multiculturalist: Contractualism, identity, and impartiality. Social Theory and Practice 35(2): 229–249.

Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, John. 1989. Themes in Kant’s moral philosophy. In Collected papers , ed. Samuel Freeman Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Raz, Joseph. 1994. Ethics in the public domain . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rorty, Richard. 2000. Is ‘cultural recognition’ a useful concept for leftist politics. Critical Horizons 1(1): 7–20.

Tully, James. 1995. Strange multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tully, James. 2009. Public philosophy in a new key . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, Allen. 1998. Humanity as an end in itself. In Kant’s groundwork of the metaphysics of morals: Critical essays , ed. Paul Guyer, 165–187. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Wolfe, Alan, and Jyette Klausen. 1997. Identity politics and the welfare state. Social philosophy and policy 14(2): 231–255.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Martha Nussbaum, Michael Green, Amy McCready, Michael James, and two extremely helpful anonymous reviewers at Res Publica for feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy, Program in Philosophy, Politics, & Economics (PPE), Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, 56001, USA

Joshua Broady Preiss

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Broady Preiss .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Preiss, J.B. Multiculturalism and Equal Human Dignity: An Essay on Bhikhu Parekh. Res Publica 17 , 141–156 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-011-9148-0

Download citation

Published : 11 March 2011

Issue Date : May 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-011-9148-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multiculturalism
• Bhikhu Parekh
• Recognition
• Human dignity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Search The Canadian Encyclopedia

Enter your search term

Why sign up?

Signing up enhances your TCE experience with the ability to save items to your personal reading list, and access the interactive map.

• MLA 8TH EDITION
• Jedwab, Jack. "Multiculturalism". The Canadian Encyclopedia , 20 March 2020, Historica Canada . www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism. Accessed 19 September 2024.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , 20 March 2020, Historica Canada . www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism. Accessed 19 September 2024." href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• APA 6TH EDITION
• Jedwab, J. (2020). Multiculturalism. In The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism
• The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism" href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• CHICAGO 17TH EDITION
• Jedwab, Jack. "Multiculturalism." The Canadian Encyclopedia . Historica Canada. Article published June 27, 2011; Last Edited March 20, 2020.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia . Historica Canada. Article published June 27, 2011; Last Edited March 20, 2020." href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy
• TURABIAN 8TH EDITION
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , s.v. "Multiculturalism," by Jack Jedwab, Accessed September 19, 2024, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism
• The Canadian Encyclopedia , s.v. "Multiculturalism," by Jack Jedwab, Accessed September 19, 2024, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/multiculturalism" href="#" class="js-copy-clipboard b b-md b-invert b-modal-copy">Copy

Thank you for your submission

Our team will be reviewing your submission and get back to you with any further questions.

Thanks for contributing to The Canadian Encyclopedia.

Multiculturalism

Article by Jack Jedwab

Published Online June 27, 2011

Last Edited March 20, 2020

Canada’s federal multiculturalism policy was adopted in 1971 by Pierre Trudeau ’s Liberal government. An unexpected by-product of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963–69), multiculturalism was intended as a policy solution to manage both rising francophone nationalism, particularly in Quebec ( see French-Canadian Nationalism ; The Quiet Revolution ), and increasing cultural diversity across the country. Canada was the first country in the world to adopt a multiculturalism policy. The federal multiculturalism policy marked its 50th anniversary in 2021.

The initial idea behind multiculturalism was brought to popular attention by John Murray Gibbon’s 1938 book Canadian Mosaic: The Making of a Northern Nation , which challenged the US-born idea of cultural assimilation, known as the “melting pot.” However, it was not until the 1960s that multiculturalism emerged as an object of national conversation about Canadian identity .

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism

The origins of Canada’s multiculturalism policy can be found in the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963–69).

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was appointed to investigate the state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada. The commission was a response to the growing unrest among French Canadians in Quebec, who called for the protection of their language and culture, and opportunities to participate fully in political and economic decision making (see Quiet Revolution ). The commission's findings led to changes in French education across the country, the creation of the federal ministry of multiculturalism and the Official Languages Act (1969) .

Two years later, in 1971, Canada’s multiculturalism policy was adopted. The policy acknowledged that Canadians come from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds, and that all cultures have intrinsic value. In a speech in the House of Commons in April of 1971, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced it as “a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework,” a policy that would complement the Official Languages Act by facilitating the integration of new Canadians into one or both of the official language communities. “Although there are two official languages, there is no official culture,” said Trudeau.

Multiculturalism was not welcomed by everyone. Opposition to the federal multiculturalism policy was strongest in the province of Quebec.

Evolution of Multicultural Policy in Canada

Federal multicultural policies and programs have evolved considerably since they were first introduced in 1971.

Ethnicity Multiculturalism (1970s)

The initial approach taken by the government might be described as “ethnicity multiculturalism.” During the early 1970s, financial assistance was extended to certain ethno-cultural organizations for the promotion of cultural heritage. Modest support was provided for folkloric and artistic ethno-cultural expression.

Early opponents of federal multiculturalism argued the program discouraged social integration. Some charged that the real purpose of the funding was to secure political support from ethnic minority populations. Despite such criticisms, multiculturalism remained popular with Canadians, though to a lesser extent in Quebec.

Equity or Rights-Based Multiculturalism (1980s)

Prior to 1970, much of Canada’s immigration was from European countries. However, the Immigration Act of 1976 lifted some restrictions on immigration from non-European countries ( see Immigration Policy in Canada ). The ensuing shift in demographics prompted calls to rethink multicultural policies with a focus on the need to combat discrimination. There were also calls to move away from supporting the cultural and/or folkloric expression of ethnic groups. As a result, equity or rights-based multiculturalism increasingly defined the policies and programs of the 1980s.

The 1982 patriation of the Canadian Constitution added a Charter of Rights . Section 27 stipulated that the Charter “shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” While the section created a basis for how other sections might be applied, it did not provide a legislative framework for multicultural policy and therefore did not prescribe what government had to do to implement and advance multiculturalism. But many Canadians began to associate multiculturalism with other basic and rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

However, the Quebec government did not sign the 1982 Constitution. And so, in 1987, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ’s Conservative government sought the agreement of all provinces to amend the constitution with an offer of recognition for Quebec’s distinct character (“distinct society”). Known as the Meech Lake Accord , the proposed constitutional amendment also called for the recognition of official language minorities, including the “recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians…constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada.” Meech Lake did not affect any of the provisions of the constitution that relate to Indigenous peoples in Canada or section 27 of the Charter, which related to multiculturalism ( see also Meech Lake Accord: Document ).

The Accord failed to secure the required consent of all provinces. Nevertheless, in 1988 the federal government passed the Multiculturalism Act (Bill C-93). It was aimed at promoting “the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society.”

In the late 1980s, concerns resurfaced about Canadian unity. Some opponents of multiculturalism believed that ethnic minority attachments to the cultures of their countries of origin were the main threat to Canadian identity. In their view, multiculturalism encouraged divisive dual and multiple identities and, in so doing, prevented citizens from simply describing themselves as Canadians.

Anti-Racism/Anti-Discrimination Multiculturalism (1990s)

During the 1990s, federal multiculturalism policies and programs placed greater emphasis on eliminating barriers to economic and social participation of immigrants and designated minority groups. In 1995, the federal government passed employment equity legislation that, among other things, required that information be gathered in order to determine the degree of the underrepresentation of persons in designated groups, notably the country’s visible minorities . Since 1996, the census has collected information about visible minorities in Canada and multiculturalism aimed at eliminating racism and discrimination , assisting institutions to become more responsive to Canada’s diversity.

Public Discourse on Canadian Multiculturalism

There are many examples of critics and champions of multiculturalism in Canada. Here are two:

Neil Bissoondath

With his 1994 publication Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, author Neil Bissoondath emerged as one of Canada’s most outspoken public critics of multiculturalism. He argued that the policy undermined Canada’s bicultural nature and thereby undermined Canadian identity ( see Canadian Identity and Language ). He insisted that the encouragement of ethnic differences led immigrants to adopt a “psychology of separation” which created distinct communities and prevented newcomers from becoming fully part of the mainstream culture. He suggested that this threatened Canadian unity and cohesion.

Will Kymlicka

With his 1995 book Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, philosopher Will Kymlicka emerged as one of the leading proponents of multiculturalism. He articulated a typology of minority rights, which includes self-government rights (for Quebec), special representation rights (for Indigenous peoples) and polyethnic rights (which he defines as legal and financial support for the protection of specific cultural practices). In a later publication, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada (1998) , Kymlicka presented evidence that multiculturalism did not decrease the rate of immigrant integration. Using data on naturalization rates for immigrants, levels of political participation among ethnocultural groups, and rates at which new Canadians can speak an official language and rates of intermarriage, Kymlicka argued that the multiculturalism policy has worked, and that there is no evidence that it has promoted ethnic separateness.

Multiculturalism in Quebec

Initial Rejection of Multiculturalism in Quebec

As mentioned earlier, multiculturalism was not welcomed by everyone in Canada. Opposition to the federal multiculturalism policy was strongest in Quebec, the only province in which French is the majority language. For example, premier Robert Bourassa insisted that the federal policy was founded on a questionable dissociation of culture from language. He argued that the policy of multiculturalism was not suited to the majority-French province. Claude Ryan , then-publisher of the Quebec French-language newspaper Le Devoir , warned that federal multicultural policy challenged the recognition of Canada’s two founding peoples (the English and the French). Many Quebecers expressed concerns that multiculturalism seemed to place French culture on an equal footing with all other ethno-cultural groups.

Charter of the French Language (1977)

In 1977, the government of Quebec introduced the Charter of the French language (Bill 101) which made French the province’s official language. In contrast with the federal model of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework, Bill 101 was described as unilingual and culturally pluralist. In an article titled “Ethnic Minorities in the New Québec” published in 1978, Camille Laurin , Bill 101’s chief architect, explained that in order to live together in the same nation, different ethnic groups must be able to speak and understand each other using French as the common language. “Hence,” he added, “a national language and common culture are useful, although they do not preclude the continued use of ethnic languages and maintaining of individual cultures.”

Bill 101 addressed a widely held concern among many francophones that without language legislation, newcomers would inevitably integrate into the English-speaking community while selectively retaining their ethnic identities. In 1978, under the Cullen/Couture agreement, the government of Canada transferred responsibility to the Quebec government for the selection of economic immigrants and the province thus assumed increased authority for programs in the area of newcomer integration and cultural retention ( see Quebec Immigration Policy .)

“Many Ways of Being a Quebecer” (1981)

Under Premier René Lévesque , in 1981 the Parti Québécois formally rejected federal multiculturalism. In its place, the government of Quebec proposed a policy of “cultural convergence.” The policy was entitled “Many ways of being a Quebecer.” Its principal objective was to “ensure the maintenance and development of cultural communities and their specificities, make French-speaking Quebecers aware of the contribution of cultural communities to our common heritage and finally promote the integration of cultural communities in Quebec society and especially in sectors where they are particularly underrepresented.”

Some critics suggested that the Quebec government’s policies and programs regarding the province’s ethno-cultural communities looked somewhat like multiculturalism in the French language, and thus resembled what the federal government had introduced in the previous decade.

The Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation (2007–08)

In Quebec, the public discussion over the accommodation of religious diversity has been especially vocal. In 2007 Liberal Premier Jean Charest announced the creation of a provincial Commission to investigate the issue of accommodating cultural and religious differences. Over several months, Commission co-chairs Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor heard public testimony from Quebec francophones denouncing multiculturalism.

In their report, the Commissioners noted that “multiculturalism is presented as though it solely takes into account recognition and affirmation of difference with no regard for integrating elements such as the teaching of national languages and intercultural exchange programs. It is this truncated version of multiculturalism that often prevails in Quebec, as though this model had not evolved in Canada since its adoption nearly 40 years ago.”

The Commissioners concluded that the Canadian multiculturalism model was not well adapted to conditions in Quebec. They proposed that Quebec opt for a model of interculturalism with the stated intention of “reconcil[ing] ethnocultural diversity with the continuity of the French-speaking core.” Through the institution of French as the “common public language” of Quebec and promoting cross-cultural interaction, an intercultural model was said to “afford security to Quebecers of French-Canadian origin and to ethno-cultural minorities and protects the rights of all, in keeping with the liberal tradition.” They also pointed to the need to clearly define the lines of separation of religion from government. The Commissioners recommended a ban on persons wearing religious symbols in what were referred to as positions of authority, notably judges, Crown prosecutors, prison guards and police officers. Nine years after the Report was issued, co-chair Charles Taylor revisited his stand and argued that such a ban was no longer required.

Multiculturalism in the Early 21st Century

Most Canadians think of multiculturalism as a demographic reality that acknowledges the diverse ethnic makeup of the Canadian population . However, there is ongoing debate over the message that multicultural policy conveys to Canadians, particularly to immigrants.

Over its first 30 years, the principal challenges confronting multiculturalism involved reconciling support for ethnic diversity, the preservation of the French language and the promotion of Canadian identity. While such debates have persisted into the 21st century, they’ve largely given way to the view that the message of multiculturalism promotes excessive accommodation of cultural and religious diversity at the expense of promoting social cohesion and common values. Others see the multicultural message as discouraging newcomers from adopting Canadian values. This, in turn, makes them less likely to participate in the mainstream culture and society and encourages the creation of ethnic ghettos.

In recent years, there has been a greater acknowledgement and acceptance of mixed and multiple identities in Canada. While most Canadians appear favourable to the ideal of multiculturalism, research suggests that support for the accommodation of religious diversity is more divided.

• immigration
• multiculturalism

Further Reading

J.Jedwab, The Multicultural Question: Debating Identity in 21 st Century Canada, (2014)

G. Bouchard. Interculturalism: A View from Quebec, 2015 S, Guo and L. Wong, Revisiting Multiculturalism in Canada: Theories, Policies and Debates, (2015)

J.W. Berry, R. Kalin and D. Taylor,  Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada  (1977)

B. Samuda, J.W. Berry and R. Laferriere,  Multiculturalism in Canada  (1984)

L. Driedger,  Multi-Ethnic Canada  (1996)

W.W. Isajiw,  Multiculturalism in North America and Europe  (1997)

P.R. Magocsi,  Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples  (1999)

A. Fleras and J.L. Elliott,  Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada  (2002)

Y. Abu-Laban and C. Gabriel,  Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Equity and Globalization  (2002)

R. Takaki,  Debating Diversity  (2002)

L. Driedger,  Multiculturalism: Bridging Ethnicity, Culture, Religion and Race  (2008)

P. Ryan,  Multicultiphobia  (2010)

External Links

Canadian Multiculturalism Day

Canadian Heritage's guide to celebrating Canadian Multiculturalism Day.

Recommended

Pierre elliott trudeau, royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, quiet revolution, immigration policy in canada, quebec immigration policy, patriation of the constitution.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Meech lake accord, population of canada.

Multiculturalism in the International Community Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

A multicultural society is one of the burning issues of today. People talk a lot about this concept without having a clear definition of this term and without an understanding of various elements of this complicated matter. As a rule, people are afraid of everything new. In this respect, the concept of multiculturalism has involved many debates over it and made the global community discuss the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism for society from various perspectives. However, it is necessary to state that this concept is mostly beneficial for contemporary society regarding those people that are objective and non-prejudiced. Multiculturalism brings great benefits to society in terms of political and economic stability as well as education.

One of the major benefits of multiculturalism in society concerns the economic advantages of different countries. Besides, the primary level of the economy of the country does not matter because the benefits would sharply increase it and improve the effectiveness of performance. The largest economies are believed to have already benefited from multiculturalism in society; for instance, Australia successfully uses the opportunities provided by the concept of multiculturalism and implements theoretical decisions and principles, as claimed by the National Multicultural Advisory Council. [1] In other words, it is necessary to use the best practices offered by multiculturalism. The same problem appeared when people became aware of the Industrialisation and Industrial Revolution which has benefited greatly to the overall progress of global development. Technological advancement can be, in these terms, compared to the multicultural society that had been approached rather negatively, though global hostility has been gradually transmitted into negotiations over this issue and had stepped a brand new level.

The level of perception of multiculturalism is very high in contemporary society due to the generation of people that avoid prejudices and seek more information and experience. People manage to do well with each other gaining more knowledge and developing some skills; as stated by Trickey, “this generation embraced multiculturalism and diversity like never before, making discrimination in the workplace against women and minorities illegal”.[2] It is true because various legal issues are aimed at protecting the groups within-population that were prosecuted a hundred years ago. Racial and religious discrimination are still urgent issues, though the members of the global community d everything possible to embrace the concept of multiculturalism and all its principles and use those for good.

The religion and culture of various ethnic groups all over the world have different traditions and different levels of adherence by the community members. Some nations are considered to be more religious than others. However, the multicultural aspects should be regarded in terms of religious impact on the diversification of other cultures within a single one. As suggested by Hamilton, the issues of multiculturalism are often confused with the ones of the purely religious aspect. [3] In this respect, it is necessary to recollect the religious teaching of Kabbalah known to have been introduced first by Madonna, this system of religious beliefs and traditions got a widespread all over the world. The most obvious impact of religion, as well as all other elements attributed to multiculturalism, can be traced regarding celebrities. [4] When people try to copy the actions and the lifestyle of celebrities, they implement the multicultural issues in their own lives and get rid of prejudices and ignorance concerning this issue without realizing.

Economic opportunities are one of the benefits available in terms of embracement of the multicultural concepts. Different countries could have established business relations with their territorial neighbors a long time ago, though this would not happen without understanding. The understanding concerns the multiculturalism and numerous opportunities it provides in terms of working experience, results of researches, recruitment, and deliveries. The business sector is the one that is claimed to benefit greatly from embracement of the multicultural concepts. For instance, Australia regards Asia as an appropriate partner in economic relationships; “While there are different views in the community about the overall issue of multiculturalism, the Council believes that multicultural principles and practices, as outlined above, have served Australia well.”[5] Territorial neighborhood enables these two communities to cooperate on mutually beneficial projects without spending too much cost on shipment, delivery, and other aspects and terms of transportation regarding the cooperation with other countries o the global community.

As a rule, multiculturalism is regarded positively in the political sector of international cooperation. When people find themselves in a different country, they can act as though they were still in their native country. This misunderstanding gives rise to many international disputes, especially taking into account countries that seem to neglect the concepts of multiculturalism as well as those of tolerance, international peace treaties, and human rights as a whole. Naturally, people try to find some ways to communicate with people in other countries, though cultural diversity presupposes a different degree of understanding of this concept for various nations. When people are attacked, it is the issue of the foreign policy of the country and should be solved on the international level. When politics are aware of the peculiarities of certain cultures in terms of behavior, it is easier for them to negotiate concerning those citizens of their country that fail to understand the cultural diversity.

Knowledge is a great power that helps us to adjust to certain circumstances and avoid international debates. It is even better when the global community has a common goal of embracing the principles of multiculturalism and implementing the information in practical tasks. Education is rather affordable nowadays. Besides, one can choose any country and any educational establishment. Multiculturalism enables educators to see the relationships between students from different cultural environments and encourage others to develop their knowledge and perception of the main principles that are aimed to bring benefits to the global community. Opportunities provided to all people are great and can be used to the full extent via gaining a mutual understanding of the importance of embracing multiculturalism as an integral part of contemporary society.

To conclude, the principles of multiculturalism are clear to all members of the international community. However, some countries actively participate in the process of embracement of those principles, while others stick to the value of traditions opposing them to common tendencies. All sectors of human activity are influenced by multiculturalism and greatly benefit from avoiding discrimination of minority groups and lack of tension in the workplace. [6] Politics, religion, economy, and education as well as all other fields are believed to benefit from multiculturalism in society. Various studies and debates on the international level demonstrate the progress of gaining more understanding about the embracement of multiculturalism in the world.

Reference List

Hamilton, M., ‘Holiday decorations, religion clauses and the Supreme Court’, in CNN International. 2004, Web.

Minar, J., ‘Celebrities and Kabbalah… Why the Fascination?’, Arts and Entertainment from Yahoo . 2005, Web.

National Multicultural Advisory Council, ‘Multicultural Australia: The Way Forward’, in Department of Immigration and Citizenship . Web.

Trickey, H., ‘Baby boomers or bums?’ , in CNN International . 2006, Web.

• Multiculturalism as the Practice of Recognizing
• Multicultural Society and Labor Force in the USA
• The Polarized World of Globalization
• Multiculturalism, the Italian Culture
• Arguments For and Against Multiculturalism
• The Role of Multiculturalism in the Development of the Country
• Multiculturalism in Contemporary German Popular Culture
• Struggle to Retain Culture: McDonaldization in China
• The Cultural Differentiation Between Native Americans and Euro-Americans
• Multiculturalism: Positive Impact
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, December 28). Multiculturalism in the International Community. https://ivypanda.com/essays/multiculturalism-in-the-international-community/

"Multiculturalism in the International Community." IvyPanda , 28 Dec. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/multiculturalism-in-the-international-community/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Multiculturalism in the International Community'. 28 December.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Multiculturalism in the International Community." December 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/multiculturalism-in-the-international-community/.

1. IvyPanda . "Multiculturalism in the International Community." December 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/multiculturalism-in-the-international-community/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Multiculturalism in the International Community." December 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/multiculturalism-in-the-international-community/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Discrimination and Prejudice — Multiculturalism

Essays on Multiculturalism

In the vibrant academic landscape, the exploration of multiculturalism stands as a critical area of study, reflecting the rich diversity of our global society. At GradesFixer, we understand the complexity and depth of multiculturalism as a subject matter. This is why we offer an extensive collection of essay samples on multiculturalism, each providing unique insights and perspectives on this multifaceted topic. Our essays serve as a beacon of inspiration and a practical guide for students embarking on the journey of writing their own pieces on multicultural identities, challenges, and contributions.

A Gateway to Diverse Perspectives

Our page dedicated to multiculturalism essays offers students a panoramic view of cultural diversity , its impacts, and its significance in today's world. From the examination of multicultural policies in educational settings to personal narratives of cultural integration, these essays encompass a broad spectrum of themes and discussions. Students can navigate through our collection to find essays that resonate with their academic needs and personal interests, using them as a springboard to develop their own arguments and viewpoints.

Crafting Your Multiculturalism Essay with Confidence

For students, the task of writing an essay on such a dynamic and expansive topic can be daunting. That's where our multiculturalism essay samples come into play. By exploring our repository, students can gain clarity on how to structure their essays, articulate complex ideas, and engage with the topic critically and creatively. Whether it's understanding the theoretical underpinnings of multiculturalism or analyzing its real-world applications, our samples provide a solid foundation for academic exploration and writing.

Enhancing Academic Research and Writing Skills

Beyond serving as models for essay writing, our multiculturalism essay samples are a valuable resource for enhancing research skills. Each essay demonstrates how to effectively incorporate evidence, make persuasive arguments, and address counterarguments, all while maintaining academic integrity. Students can learn how to critically assess sources, synthesize diverse perspectives, and contribute meaningfully to the discourse on multiculturalism.

Join Our Academic Community

At GradesFixer, we're more than just an essay sample repository; we're a vibrant academic community committed to fostering learning, creativity, and academic excellence. We invite students, educators, and researchers to explore our multiculturalism essay samples, draw inspiration from them, and use them as a tool for academic success and personal growth.

The discourse on multiculturalism is ever-evolving, reflecting the dynamic interplay of cultures in our global society. By utilizing our multiculturalism essay samples, students are better equipped to engage with this discourse, offering fresh insights and contributing to a more inclusive and understanding world. Dive into our collection today and let it be the catalyst for your academic and personal exploration of multiculturalism.

The Multicultural Culture: The Story of Samir Moussa

What is a multicultural society, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Examples of Multicultural Development

An argument in favor of multiculturalism as an inevitable challenge for democracies, multiculturalism as a negative in neil bissondaths no place like home and will kymlickas immigrants multiculturalism and canadian citizenship, analysis of life experience: multiculturalism in canada, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Multicultural Concepts in Teacher Education

Challenges of education in a multicultural environment, understanding differences in perception for multicultural cooperation, comparison of multiculturalism and polyculturalism, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Examining The Multiculturalism of South Africa in Cry, The Beloved Country

Diversity in education: a need for reform, cultivating my culture while being away from home, social justice orientation and multicultural environment, exploring the role of multiculturalism in the film keeping the faith, effective leadership in a multicultural & multigenerational workplace, multilingualism and identity in transnational workplaces in sweden, the importance of diversity in the classroom, importance of being bilingual, culture war: the myth of a polarized america, issue of culture war in american political-social landscape, forming friendships across cultures, the international classroom: cultural exchange, afrocentrism vs. eurocentrism: cultural perspectives, multicultural education: fostering diversity and inclusion, the identity of the hyphenated american, the transformative power of embracing diversity, the power of multiculturalism: diversity and inclusivity, multicultural challenges and integration policies, relevant topics.

• Racial Profiling
• Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination
• Islamophobia
• Hate Speech
• Fat Shaming
• Political Correctness

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Multiculturalism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Multiculturalism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Multiculturalism

What is multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is when people from different places, with different ways of living and different beliefs, come together in one society. It’s like a salad bowl, where each unique ingredient adds to the flavor, making it better.

Benefits of Multiculturalism

When we live in a place with many cultures, we learn a lot. We get to try new foods, celebrate different festivals, and make friends with different backgrounds. This teaches us to be kind and open-minded.

Challenges of Multiculturalism

Sometimes, people find it hard to understand each other’s ways. This can lead to disagreements. But, talking and learning about each other’s cultures can help solve these problems.

Multiculturalism in Schools

Schools are great for multiculturalism. Kids learn about the world’s cultures and languages. This helps them become better citizens of the world, ready to work and live with all kinds of people.

250 Words Essay on Multiculturalism

Living in a multicultural society is like having the world at your doorstep. You get to learn about other ways of life without traveling far. For example, you can try different types of food, listen to new music, and make friends with people who have different stories to tell. This can help us become more understanding and accepting of others.

Sometimes, when people from different backgrounds live together, they might not agree on everything. It can be hard to understand someone who is very different from you. But it’s important to talk and listen to each other. This is how we can solve problems and live together peacefully.

Learning from Each Other

In a place full of different cultures, we can learn a lot from each other. We can see that even though we might do things differently, we often have the same hopes and dreams. By sharing our cultures, we can teach each other new things and grow together.

In conclusion, multiculturalism is about different cultures living together and learning from one another. It has its ups and downs, but it makes our world a more exciting and caring place.

500 Words Essay on Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is like a big garden with many different types of flowers. Each flower has its own color, shape, and smell. This garden is more beautiful because it has so many kinds of flowers. In the same way, multiculturalism means having people from many different cultures and backgrounds living together in one place. Just like each flower adds beauty to the garden, every culture adds something special to a country or community.

In a multicultural school, you might have friends from different countries. You can learn from them about their holidays, how they dress, and what games they play. This is not just fun, but it also helps you understand how people see the world in different ways. By learning about other cultures, you become smarter and more understanding. It’s like each new friend is a new book full of exciting stories and lessons.

Sometimes, having many cultures together can be hard. People might not understand each other because they speak different languages or have different customs. It’s like when you play a team game, and everyone has different rules. To play well together, you need to learn the same rules. In multiculturalism, the “rules” are respect and kindness. When everyone follows these rules, it’s easier to get along.

How to Support Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is like a colorful quilt. Each piece of fabric is different, but when sewn together, they make something warm and beautiful. Living in a multicultural world helps us learn, grow, and understand each other better. It’s important to remember that even though we might look or speak differently, inside, we all have feelings, dreams, and the need to be loved and respected. So, let’s celebrate the beauty of every culture and build a world where everyone feels like they belong.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *