multiculturalism

 

or cultural pluralism, a term describing the coexistence of many cultures in a locality, without any one culture dominating the region. By making the broadest range of human differences acceptable to the largest number of people, multiculturalism seeks to overcome racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

The term multiculturalism is used to describe the recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a particular social space.

Some countries have official, or de jure, multiculturalism policies aimed at preserving different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society. In this context, multiculturalism advocates a society that extends equitable status to distinct cultural and religious groups.

In other states, nations or communities, the de facto conditions of cultural heterogeneity and cosmopolitanism exist without official recognition.

Advocates for the adoption (or maintenance) of official policies of multiculturalism often argue that cultural diversity is a positive force for a society’s nationhood or cultural identity. Official multiculturalism contrasts with forms of officially sanctioned monoculturalism (though such a term has only been used retrospectively). Monoculturalism implies a normative cultural unity or cultural homogeneity. Where a nation has accepted high levels of immigration, monoculturalism has been accompanied by varieties of assimilationist policies and practices to encourage forms of acculturation to (and protection of) the norms of the dominant culture.^{[citation needed]} The term multicultural is also often used to refer to non-European immigrant groups in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This usage is similar to the terms NESB (Non-English speaking backgound and CALD (Culturally and linguistically diverse) people.

Contemporary history in Western societies

In the Western English-speaking countries multiculturalism as an official national policy started in Canada in 1971 and followed by Australia in 1973 .^[1] It was quickly adopted by most member-states in the European Union, as official policy. In recent years, several European states, notably the Netherlands and Denmark, right-of-center governments have reversed the national policy consensus, and returned to an official monoculturalism.^[2] A similar reversal is the subject of debate in the United Kingdom and Germany, among others, due to evidence of incipient segregation and anxieties over 'home-grown' terrorism.^{[citation needed]}

Multiculturalism is not limited to official policy. As a philosophy it began its evolution, first as part of philosophy's pragmatism movement at the end of the nineteenth century in Britain and in the United States, then as political and cultural pluralism by the turn of the twentieth. It was partly in response to a new wave of European imperialism in sub-Saharan Africa and the massive immigration of Southern and Eastern Europeans to the United States and Latin America. Philosophers, psychologists and historians (including a couple who laid the foundations for sociology as a field) such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, George Santayana, Horace Kallen, John Dewey, W.E.B. Du Bois and Alain Locke helped facilitate the evolution of concepts such cultural pluralism, from which emerged what we understand today as multiculturalism. In Pluralistic Universe (1909), William James espoused the idea of a "plural society." James saw pluralism as "crucial to the formation of philosophical and social humanism to help build a better, more egalitarian society.^[3]

The monocultural nation-state (Europe)

Especially in the 19th century, the ideology of nationalism transformed the way Europeans thought about the state. Existing states were broken up and new ones created; the new nation-states were founded on the principle that each nation is entitled to its own sovereign state and to engender, protect, and preserve its own unique culture and history. Unity, under this ideology, is seen as an essential feature of the nation and the nation-state - unity of descent, unity of culture, unity of language, and often unity of religion. The nation-state constitutes a culturally homogeneous society, although some national movements recognised regional differences. None, however, accepted foreign elements in culture and society. Multilingual and multi-ethnic empires, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, were derided as oppressive, and most Europeans did not accept that such a state could be legitimate.

Where cultural unity was insufficient, it was encouraged and enforced by the state. The 19th-century nation-states developed an array of policies - the most important was compulsory primary education in the national language. The language itself was often standardized by a linguistic academy, and regional languages were ignored or suppressed. Some nation-states pursued violent policies of cultural assimilation and even ethnic cleansing.

It has been argued that the concept, if not the 19th century methodology, of monoculturalism has been gaining favour in recent years. This is generally fuelled by a desire to safeguard national cultures or identities that are perceived as being under threat - particularly by globalisation and the promulgation of multiculturalism by Left Wing political parties - as opposed to the outright xenophobia of the 19th century.

The 'Melting Pot' ideal (USA)

In the United States, continuous mass immigration had been a feature of economy and society since the first half of the 19th century. There was no illusion that the immigrants would return: immigration was seen as a permanent choice for a new country. The absorption of the stream of immigrants became, in itself, a prominent feature of the national mythos, along with the expansion westwards. The central metaphor is the idea of the Melting Pot - where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. The Melting Pot implied that each individual immigrant, and each group of immigrants, assimilated into American society at their own pace, improving their income and social status on the way. It reflected and influenced official policy: although language courses were offered, they were rarely compulsory. As a result, several immigrant communities maintained a non-English language for generations. The nature of American national identity, with its emphasis on symbolic patriotism, allegiance, national values and a national mythos, facilitated the assimilation of immigrants. The Melting Pot attitude did not require a detailed knowledge of American history, acquisition of a complex cultural heritage, or English with an American accent. It allowed interest in the culture of the country of origin, and family ties with that country. In practice, the original culture disappeared within two generations. An Americanized (and often stereotypical) version of the original nation's cuisine, and its holidays, survived.

The Melting Pot concept has been criticized as being, in effect, an idealistic fantasy. One common criticism is that it apparently did not apply to English-speaking, US-born black people, who stayed at the bottom of the social ladder from the American Civil War on. Another criticism is that the Melting Pot model described the assimilation of immigrants from Europe, rather than the assimilation of ''any'' immigrant. The growth in the use of the Spanish language - the model implies it would decline - has led to calls for state-enforced language policy similar to those in Europe. More recently, some have argued that "the Melting Pot" leads to an erosion of groups' individual heritages and have argued that the USA is better described as "a tossed salad", with each group intermingling with all, but maintaining their separate identity.

Note that the Melting Pot tradition co-exists with a belief in national unity, dating from the American founding fathers:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." -- John Jay, First American Supreme Court Chief Justice

Ethnic selection (Australia)

This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies.

Prior to settlement by the Europeans, the Australian continent was not a single 'nation', but had many indigenous cultures and between 200 and 400 active languages at any one time. The present nation of Australia resulted from a deliberate process of immigration intended to fill the "empty" continent (also excluding potential rivals to the British Empire). Settlers from the United Kingdom, after 1800 including Ireland, were the earliest people that were not native the continent to live in Australia. Dutch colonization (see New Holland) and possible visits to Australia by explorers and/or traders from China, did not lead to permanent settlement. Until 1901, Australia existed as a group of independent British colonies.

Proposals to limit immigration by nationality were intended to maintain the cultural and political identity of the colonies as part of the British Empire. The White Australia policy, which in various forms lasted 150 years but was not "official" policy per se for much of that time, was the most comprehensive policy of this type in the world. Such policies theoretically limit the cultural diversity of the immigrant population, and in theory facilitate the cultural assimilation of the immigrants, since they would come from related cultures. Taken from a historical perspective, however, this was not a matter of cultural diversity or otherwise, but the preservation of Australia's British character. It was official policy for much of the 20th century to promote European immigration and to keep out those who did not fit Australia's homogeneous European-derived culture. The definition of "white" also changed quite substantially over the course of the White Australia Policy - as the Twentieth Century progressed and the number of migrants from the British Isles became insufficient to meet planned quotas, "white" moved further East through Europe, encompassing the Italians, Greeks, Yugoslavs and refugees from World War II in Europe.

Multiculturalism in contemporary Eastern societies

India

India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent.^[4] India's Republican democracy is premised on a national belief in pluralism, not the standard nationalist invocation of a shared history, a single language and an assimilationist culture.^[5] State boundaries in India are mostly drawn on linguistic lines.^[6] In addition India is also one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, with significant Hindu (80.5%) , Muslim (13.4%), Christian (2.3%), Sikh (2.1%), Buddhist, Jain and Parsi populations^[7]. Cities like Mumbai in Maharashtra display high levels of multilingualism and multiculturalism, spurred by political integration after independence and migration from rural areas.

Adoption of multiculturalism as national policy

Multiculturalism was adopted as official policy, in several nations from the 1970s onward, for reasons that varied from country to country.^{[citation needed]}

Government multicultural policies may include:

• recognition of multiple citizenship (the multiple citizenship itself usually results from the nationality laws of another country)
• government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages
• support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations
• acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general
• support for music and arts from minority cultures
• programs to encourage minority representation in politics, SET (Science, Engineering and Technology), Mathematics, education, and the work force in general.

Origins in Canada

In Canada, multiculturalism was first articulated by Progressive Conservative Senator Paul Yuzyk in his maiden Senate speech in 1964. It was officially adopted in 1971, following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government should recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions. Although India already had a history of multiculturalism, this was the first time that it was adopted in a Western country.

Progressive Conservative Party leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of unhyphenated Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young Francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism. While many Canadians disliked the new policies of biculturalism and official bilingualism, the strongest opposition came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population was tiny compared to other cultural minorities. To accommodate them, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and biculturalism" to "bilingualism and multiculturalism."

The Liberal Party government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the "Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework" in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precursor of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of the Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative government which received Royal Assent on 21 July 1988. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and the construction of ethnic-oriented community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations rather than Trudeau's vision of a Just Society. After its election in 1984, the government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse these policies, although they had earlier been criticized by Tories as inconsistent with unhyphenated Canadianism. The Trinidad-born Canadian intellectual Neil Bissoondath has been a particular critic of the concept as an official policy.^[8]

Far from pleading multiculturalism's neutrality in matters of national unity, out of belief or political correctness, successive Canadian governments have argued that the policy promotes the national interest by breaking down social and cultural barriers. Many believe that rather than weakening the national character, or presenting a slippery slope whereby all groups may appeal for separate (read special) treatment based on every imaginable difference, the policy is viewed as strengthening national identity by binding citizens to a single moral community. However, there are critics of the policy, and according to a 2007 University of Toronto study, many recent non-white citizens do not identify themselves as being "Canadian".^[9]

The policy was added to Canada's 1982 constitution, in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Diane Ravitch describes both the melting pot and Canada's cultural mosaic as being multicultural and distinguishes them as pluralistic and particularist multiculturalism. ^{[citation needed]} Pluralistic multiculturalism views each culture or subculture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture. Particularist multiculturalism is more concerned with preserving the distinctions between cultures.

Canadian multiculturalism is looked upon with admiration by many world leaders - particularly His Highness the Aga Khan. In a 2002 interview with the Globe and Mail, the 49th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims described Canada as "the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe",^[10] citing it as "a model for the world."^[10] He explained that the experience of Canadian governance - its commitment to pluralism and its support for the rich multicultural diversity of its peoples - is something that must be shared and would be of benefit societies in other parts of the world.^[11][12] With this in mind, he went on in 2006 to establish the Global Centre for Pluralism in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Centre seeks to export the Canadian experience by promoting pluralist values and practices in culturally diverse societies worldwide, with the aim of ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to realize his or her full potential as a citizen, irrespective of cultural, ethnic or religious differences.^[12]

The Diversity at Work Glossary, recognizes multiculturalism as part of “a policy introduced by the federal government in 1971, which acknowledges that many ethnic Canadians experience unequal access to resources and opportunities. It urges more recognition of the contributions of such Canadians, the preservation of certain expressions of their ethnicity, and more equity in the treatment of all Canadians. Since 1971, there has been increasing recognition of the limitation of this concept; first, it does not explicitly acknowledge the critical role which racism plays in preventing this vision from materialising; second, it promotes a static and limited notion of culture as fragmented and confined to ethnicity; and third, it pays insufficient attention to institutional forms of racial discrimination, focusing instead on individual expressions and experiences”.(Source: Diversity at Work, Diversity Glossary))

Australia

The other country to have most fully adopted Canadian-style multiculturalism is Australia, with many similar policies, for example the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service. While the White Australia Policy was quietly dismantled after World War II by various changes to immigration policy, the full political introduction of official policies of multiculturalism was 1973.

The origins of Australian immigration are the White Australia Policy, an unofficial idea that only Caucasian, English speaking migrants were welcome. Over time this idea was compounded by the Liberal Party Government under Menzies, with particular emphasis on the "Yellow Peril", the fear of Asian expansion and Communism.

The meaning of multiculturalism has changed enormously since its formal introduction to Australia. Originally it was understood by the mainstream population as a need for acceptance that many members of the Australian community originally came from different cultures and still had ties to it. However, it came to mean the rights of migrants within mainstream Australia to express their cultural identity. It is now often used to refer to the fact that very many people in Australia have, and recognise, multiple cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Australia estimated that, in 2005, 25% of the Australian workforce was born outside of Australia and 40% had at least one parent born outside of Australia.

Following the initial moves of the Whitlam Labor government in 1973, further official national multicultural policies were implemented by Malcom Fraser's Liberal Government in 1978. The Labor Government of Bob Hawke continued with these policies during the 1980s and early 1990s, and were further supported by Paul Keating up to his electoral defeat 1996.

The election of John Howard's Liberal-National Coalition government in 1996 was a major watershed for Australian multiculturalism. Howard had long been a critic of multiculturalism, expressing doubts in the late 1980s about levels of Asian immigration. Shortly after the new government took office, the new independent member Pauline Hanson made her maiden speech in which she was highly critical of multicultulturalism, saying that a multicultural society could never be strong. Notably, despite many calls for Howard to censure Hanson, his response was to state that her speech indicated a new freedom of expression in Australia on such issues. Rather than official multiculturalism, Howard has advocated instead the idea of a "shared national identity", albeit one strongly grounded in certain recognisably Anglo-Celtic Australian themes, such as 'mateship' and a 'fair go'. While Howard has changed the name of the Department of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Indigenous Affairs to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the policy of multiculturalism has remained largely intact in practice. Newspaper columists such as the right wing Andrew Bolt have called for a National policy of Assimilation.

Sweden

Officially undertook a multiculturalist policy in 1975. The previous decade had seen a significant labor shortage and immigration from other Scandinavian countries, Poland, Southern Europe, and the Middle East had increased. By 1979, 11% of all residents of Sweden had been born outside of the country. Sweden required that immigrants speak Swedish as a condition of employment and instituted free language classes through university extension programs. Some towns, and sections of large cities, became predominantly non-Swedish in language and culture. The state also initiated immigrant classrooms in the schools to teach Swedish to children. At the same time, they started an after school hemspråk (home language) program in which children could receive instruction in their native languages. It has been subject to a lot of criticism by the current administration and is under review.

United States

In the United States multiculturalism is not an official policy at the federal level. At the state level, it is sometimes associated with English-Spanish bilingualism. ^{[citation needed]} However, the government, in recent years, has moved to support many multiculturalist policies. For instance, California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages.[45]

United Kingdom

Under the Conservatives (1979-1997), multicultural rhetoric and policies were confined to left-leaning councils. Since the election of the Labour government in 1997, multiculturalism has influenced government policies and statements. Precursors of present policy include the Race Relations Act, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. The policy's recent harsh critics have included the Ugandan-born Archbishop of York John Sentamu and the Pakistani-born bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali.

There is much debate as to what multiculturalism actually is, and whether Britain is indeed an accepted multicultural state, or simply a multiracial state. For the most part, the establishment of foreign culture in Britain has been accepted, and is often quoted as a boost to the economy whilst engendering cultural diversity and fusional phenomena such as Anglo-Indian cuisine and Pop bhangra; but this integration - or in some cases, lack thereof - has not been without its tension or critics.

The most notable political opponent to multiculturalism is the United Kingdom Independence Party whose policies include departure from the European Union, strict controls on immigration, and a focus on laws dedicated to the prosperity of the UK and its native culture. UKIP differs from the British National Party in that its policies make no reference to race or the indigenous people of Britain.

Cited examples of the "failure" of multiculturalism in Britain often refer to the prevalence of entire secluded communities of first or second generation immigrants, who rarely integrate with outside communities, and often have localized languages. These communities are often poor and working class, whose members often complain of being 'neglected' by Britain as a whole.

The establishment and expanse of such communities is often met with bemusement and the so-called 'White flight' from the depleting native minority, and has led in part to incidents such as the Bradford Riot.

Efforts to revive a sense of social solidarity - which the British government now appears to acknowledge as being more conducive to social harmony than the encouragement of cultural diversification - include the introduction of a Britishness test, requiring applicants for British citizenship to demonstrate an affinity with British culture. This, by its very concept, is contrary to multiculturalism, which is by definition the opposite of social solidarity; and critics have argued that such measures are belated, superficial and, crucially, factually inaccurate.

Malaysia

The Malay Peninsula has a long history of international trade contacts, influencing its ethnic and religious composition. Predominantly Malays before the 18th century, the ethnic composition changed dramatically when the British introduced new industries, and imported Chinese and Indian labour. Several regions in the then British Malaya such as Penang, Malacca and Singapore became Chinese dominated. Co-existence between the three ethnicities (and other minor groups) was largely peaceful, despite the fact the immigration affected the demographic and cultural position of the Malays.

Preceding independence of the Federation of Malaya, a social contract was negotiated as the basis of a new society. The contract as reflected in the 1957 Malayan Constitution and the 1963 Malaysian Constitution states that the immigrant groups are granted citizenship, and Malays' special rights are guaranteed. This is often referred to the Bumiputra policy.

The formation of Malaysia itself was burdened with the 'mathematics of race'. The then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman would only accept Singapore as a member of the federation if Sarawak and North Borneo were admitted too. The Prime Minister's rationale was that the inclusion of Singapore into a new federation would make the Chinese the new majority power, at the expense of the Malays. Inclusion of the Borneo states, on the other hand, would maintain a Malay majority.

Ethnic tensions followed the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Singapore, under the leadership of People's Action Party, and the federal government led by a coalition chaired by the United Malays National Organisation, had frequent disputes about the social contract. Tension between Malays and Chinese contributed to the 1964 Race Riots in Singapore. This riot in turn partly contributed to the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia. At the same time, Malaysia was experiencing a communist insurgency known as the Malayan Emergency. The conflict could be seen as between the Chinese-dominated Communist Party of Malaya and the British-backed Malay-dominated government.^[13]

The worst race riot — the May 13 Incident — occurred in 1969, again between Chinese and Malays. This led to the introduction of the New Economic Policy which aimed to reduce economic disparities between the ethnic groups. It also introduced policies such as the Rukunegara to encourage unity among all ethnic groups in Malaysia, and promoted syncretic festivals such as DeepaRaya and Kongsi Raya. In education, the national education policies included vernacular education. Malaysia is the only country outside of China that has a Chinese education system.^[14]

These pluralist policies have come under pressure from orthodox Muslims and Islamist parties, who oppose secular and non-Islamic religious influences. The issue is related to the controversial status of religious freedom in Malaysia.

Multiculturalism as introductory to monoculturalism

Multiculturalism, as generally understood, refers to ideology and policy in western nation-states, which previously had an uncontested national identity. Many nation-states in Africa, Asia, and the Americas are culturally diverse, and are 'multi-cultural' in a descriptive sense. In some, communalism is a major political issue. The policies adopted by these states often have parallels with multicultural-ist policies in the Western world, but the historical background is different, and the goal may be a monocultural or mono-ethnic nation-building - for instance in the Malaysian governments attempt to create a 'Malaysian race' by 2020.^[15]

Despite some opposition to multiculturalism, many groups do support and sympathize with multiculturalism for different reasons. Multiculturalism does have support from some social conservatives. Many immigrant groups in Canada, USA and Europe come from socially conservative backgrounds. These groups are generally pro-life on the abortion issue, against divorce, support freedom of religion and support marriage over common-law relationships. Many immigrant groups also support tax credits for stay at home parents as well as government funding for faith based charities. It is believed that if these groups preserve their cultures, that they will remain socially conservative.

Multiculturalism also has support from the political left. Support from the political left comes mainly from those who are communitarian. Communitarians support multiculturalism because it gives immigrant groups a sense of community when they settle in new countries. Immigrant groups generally settle together in the same community which helps their transition to their new countries. Communitarians also support multiculturalism because of the need for society to be tolerant of all races and religions.

Developing opposition to multiculturalism

Skeptics of the ideology often debate whether the multicultural ideal of benignly co-existing cultures that interrelate and influence one another, and yet remain distinct, is sustainable, paradoxical or even desirable when housed by a single nation - one that, in the case of some European nations, would previously have been synonymous with a distinctive cultural identity of its own. It may be that the cultural amalgamation the policy engenders will eventually subvert the national distinctions it originally sought to protect and, in this way, hamper the world's cultural diversity; alternatively distinct communities might instinctively become insular and distance themselves from the rest of society, resulting in de facto segragation: multiculturalism without interculturalism.

United States

This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies.

In the United States especially, multiculturalism became associated with political correctness and with the rise of ethnic identity politics. In the 1980s and 1990s many criticisms were expressed, from both the left and right. Criticisms come from a wide variety of perspectives, but predominantly from the perspective of liberal individualism, from American conservatives concerned about values, and from a national unity perspective.

An early critic of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who feared the worldwide ethnic revival of the late 1960s would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. She considered multiculturalism and monoculturalism to be culturally determinist collectivism (in the sense that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that it undermines the concept of free will, arguing that the human mind is a tabula rasa at birth.^{[citation needed]}

The liberal-feminist critique is related to the liberal and libertarian critique, since it is concerned with what happens inside the cultural groups. In her 1999 essay, later expanded into an anthology, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" the feminist and political theorist Susan Okin argues that a concern for the preservation of cultural diversity should not overshadow the discriminatory nature of gender roles in many traditional minority cultures, that, at the very least, "culture" should not be used as an excuse for rolling back the women's rights movement.

A prominent criticism in the US, later echoed in Europe, was that multiculturalism undermined national unity, hindered social integration and cultural assimilation, and led to the fragmentation of society into several ethnic factions - Balkanization.^[16]

In 1991, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner, published a book with the title The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.^[17] Schlesinger states that a new attitude - one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation - may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice"; however, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society.

In the United States, the cultural relativism implicit in multiculturalism attracted criticism. Often that was combined with an explicit preference for western Enlightenment values as universal values. In his 1991 work, Illiberal Education, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the entrenchment of multiculturalism in American universities undermined the universalist values that liberal education once attempted to foster. In particular, he was disturbed by the growth of ethnic studies programs (e.g., Black Studies).

Conservatives - in the US, largely Christian conservatives - tend to see multiculturalism as an attack on America's traditional Christian culture, see also Christendom. They may attribute the introduction of multiculturalism to the civil rights movement and the 1965 Immigration Act or the (Hart-Celler Act).^{[citation needed]}

Criticism of multiculturalism in the US was not always synonymous with opposition to immigration. Some politicians did address both themes, notably Pat Buchanan, who in 1993 described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage."^{[citation needed]}

Buchanan and other paleoconservatives argue that multiculturalism is the ideology of the modern managerial state, an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority. It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.^{[citation needed]}

Another recent critic of multiculturalism is the political theorist Brian Barry. In his 2002 book Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, he argues that some forms of multiculturalism can divide people, although they need to unite in order to fight for social justice.

Canada

This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies.

Approximately 18% of today's Canadian citizens were born outside Canada, the highest immigration rate of any G8 country. Recent immigrants are largely concentrated in the cities of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, which have high population growth due to this concentrated immigration.

In Canada, the most noted critics of multiculturalism are Kenneth McRoberts, Neil Bissoondath, and Daniel Stoffman. As a young man, McRoberts worked for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and his career as a political scientist has roughly coincided with the policy of multiculturalism. While some^{[citation needed]} argue that the shift in official discourse from biculturalism to multiculturalism has had a neutral effect on relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, McRoberts believes that it was disastrous for Canadian nationalism, as it offended Québecois and their dualistic vision of Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society.

To many French Canadians, multiculturalism threatened to reduce them to just another ethnic group. Of all Canadian provinces, Quebec has been the least supportive of multiculturalism, due in part to a widespread view that multiculturalism was implemented at the federal level to dilute the two founding peoples philosophy which had preceded it, thereby diminishing the place of the province's French majority within Canada, and due in part to Quebec's policy internally of welcoming people of all origins but insisting that they assimilate^{[citation needed]} into Quebec's French-speaking society. Recently, however, the more assimilationist aspects of this policy have been tempered^{[citation needed]} with a recognition that Quebec is a de facto pluralist society and an understanding of pluralism as a feature of modern Quebec society or any other society that welcomes immigrants. The Quebec government has therefore adopted a form of multiculturalism termed an "interculturalism policy."

This policy seeks to integrate immigrants into the mainstream French-speaking society of Quebec on the basis of French, the language of the majority, as the common public language of all Québécois; all citizens are in this way held to be invited to participate in a common civic culture. Interculturalism is in this way consistent with the Quebec government's view of itself as the "national" government for all Québécois, because interculturalism is viewed as less threatening than multiculturalism, to the idea of Quebec's population as a single and distinct nation within another nation. Whether as a first, second, or third language, French becomes the instrument which allows the socialization of Québécois of all origins and forces interaction between them.

Intellectual Critique

In his Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada, the Trinidad and Tobago-born Bissoondath argues that official multiculturalism limits the freedom of minority members, by confining them to cultural and geographic ghettos. He also argues that cultures are very complex, and must be transmitted through close family and kin relations. To him, the government view of cultures as being about festivals and cuisine is a crude oversimplification that leads to easy stereotyping.

Daniel Stoffman's Who Gets In raises serious questions about the policy of Canadian multiculturalism. Stoffman points out that many cultural practices, such as allowing dog meat to be served in restaurants and street cockfighting, are simply incompatible with Canadian and Western culture. He also raises concern about the number of recent immigrants who are not being linguistically integrated into Canada (i.e., not learning either English or French). He stresses that multiculturalism works better in theory than in practice.

Another more recent and conservative criticism, based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience, is presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson, who views multiculturalism as a utopian ideology with a simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to communism, anarchism, and many strains of liberalism. According to Njalsson, multiculturalism is particular to a western urban environment and cannot survive as an ideology outside it. Some variants of multiculturalism, he believes, may equip non-egalitarian cultural groups with power and influence. This, in turn, may alter the value system of the larger society. This realist criticism of multiculturalism maintains that in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US, multiculturalism may aggravate a situation where old-stock families are not permitted by the countries of their forebearers to consider themselves English, French, Scandinavian, etc., while newer arrivals can claim two or more national identities. ^{[citation needed]}

Australia

The response to multiculturalism in Australia has been extremely varied, with a recent wave of criticism against it in the past decade. An anti-immigration party, the One Nation Party, was formed by Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s. The party enjoyed significant electoral success for a while, most notably in its home state of Queensland, but is now electorally marginalized. In its 1998 policy document on Immigration, Population and Social Cohesion, One Nation advocated the complete abolition of multiculturalism, asserting that there was "no reason why migrant cultures should be maintained at the expense of our shared, national culture." According to One Nation, multiculturalism represented a "threat to the very basis of the Australian culture, identity and shared values." Such a policy in combination with high immigration, One Nation argued, would eventually lead to "the Asianisation of Australia." ^[18]

Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia is, as of 2006, focused on the position of Islamic immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the main targets of anti-immigration campaigns were immigrants from southern Europe, and later east Asia.

A Federal Government proposal in 2006 to introduce a compulsory citizenship test, which would assess English skills and knowledge of Australian values, sparked renewed debate over the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Andrew Robb, then Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, told a conference in November 2006 that some Australians worried the term "multicultural" had been transformed by interest groups into a philosophy that put "allegiances to original culture ahead of national loyalty, a philosophy which fosters separate development, a federation of ethnic cultures, not one community". He added: "A community of separate cultures fosters a rights mentality, rather than a responsibilities mentality. It is divisive. It works against quick and effective integration." ^[19]

In January 2007 the Howard Government removed the word 'multicultural' from the name of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, changing its name to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Intellectual critique

One of the earliest critics of multiculturalism in Australia has been the history Professor Geoffrey Blainey. Blainey warned that multiculturalism threatened to transform Australia into a "cluster of tribes". In his 1984 book All for Australia, Blainey criticized multiculturalism for being "anti-British" and for overemphasizing the rights of ethnic minorities, Asian immigrants in particular, at the expense of the majority of Australians. According to Blainey, such a policy with its "emphasis on what is different and on the rights of the new minority rather than the old majority" was unnecessarily creating division and threatened the nation's social cohesion. He remained a persistent critic of multiculturalism into the 1990s, condemning multiculturalism as "morally, intellectually and economically ... a sham".

Following the upsurge of support for the One Nation Party in 1996, Lebanese-born Australian anthropologist Ghassan Hage published a notable critique in 1997 of Australian multiculturalism in the book White Nation^[20]. Drawing on theoretical frameworks from Whiteness studies, Jacques Lacan and Pierre Bourdieu, Hage examined a range of everyday discourses that implicated both anti-multiculturalists and pro-multiculturalists alike. The book was taken by many merely to be an attack on Australia's Anglo-Celtic majority^{[citation needed]}, but its analysis is more sophisticated than a charge of racism by the dominant ethnic group. Hage's analysis suggests that Australian multiculturalism has fallen a long way short of its original ideals and works much more as a form of assimilation by the participation of white and non-white people, pro- and anti-multiculturalists alike in maintaining the centrality of a set of cultural values associated with Whiteness.

The Netherlands

In the 1950s, the Netherlands was generally a mono-ethnic and monocultural society: it was not explicitly monolingual, but almost everyone could speak standard Dutch. Its inhabitants shared a classic national identity, with a national mythos emphasising the Dutch Golden Age, and national heroes such as Admiral Michiel de Ruyter. Dutch society was segmented along religious and ideological lines, sometimes coinciding with differences in social class and lifestyle. This segmentation had developed since the late 19th century into a uniquely Dutch version, called pillarization, enabling peaceful cooperation between the leaders of the various 'pillars', while their constituencies remained largely segregated. The jews had been the only non-Christian minority for centuries, enjoying more freedom and less discrimination than elsewhere in Europe. Major immigration in the form of labour migration began in the 1960s, and accelerated in the 1970s, with Morocco and Turkey as the main origin countries. From the 1970s, multiculturalism was a consensus ideology among the 'political class', and determined official policy. The principle was expressed in the phrase "Integratie met behoud van eigen taal en cultuur", that is, social integration while retaining the language and culture of the immigrant groups. Immigrants were treated as members of a monolithic cultural bloc, on the basis of nationality - their religion only became an issue in the 1990s. These communities were addressed by the Dutch government, in what it considered to be their own languages - Arabic for Moroccan immigrants, even though many of them did not speak it. Opposition to the consensus was politically marginal. The anti-immigration Centrumpartij had occasional electoral successes, but its leader Hans Janmaat was ostracized, and fined for his often strident opposition to multiculturalism.

The elite consensus on multiculturalism co-existed with widespread aversion to immigration, and an ethnic definition of the Dutch nation. Dutch nationalism, and support for a traditional national identity, never disappeared, but were not visible. When these factors re-entered political debate in the late 1990s, they contributed to the collapse of the consensus. The Netherlands has now attracted international attention for the extent to which it reversed its previous multiculturalist policies, and its policies on cultural assimilation have been described as the toughest in Europe.^[21]

The multicultural policy consensus regarded the presence of immigrant cultural communities as non-problematic, or beneficial. Immigration was not subject to limits on cultural grounds: in practice, the immigration rate was determined by demand for unskilled labour, and later by migration of family members. Gross non-Western immigration was about three million, but many of these later returned.^[22] Net immigration, and the higher birth rate of the immigrant communities, have transformed the Netherlands since the 1950s. Although the majority are still ethnic Dutch, in 2006 one fifth of the population was of non-Dutch ethnicity, about half of which were of non-western origin [46]. Immigration transformed Dutch cities especially: in Amsterdam, 55% of young people are of non-western origin (mainly Turkish and Moroccan) ^[23]. This situation prompted opposition to multiculturalism to become more structured at the end of the 1990s.

Intellectual critique

In 1999, the legal philosopher Paul Cliteur attacked multiculturalism in his book 'The Philosophy of Human Rights'^[24] Cliteur rejects all political correctness on the issue: western culture, the Rechtsstaat (rule of law), and human rights are superior to non-western culture and values. They are the product of the Enlightenment: Cliteur sees non-western cultures not as merely different, but as anachronistic. He sees multiculturalism primarily as an unacceptable ideology of cultural relativism, which would lead to acceptance of barbaric practices, including those brought to the Western World by immigrants. Cliteur lists infanticide, torture, slavery, oppression of women, homophobia,