Maurizio Ambrosini, università di Milano, Integration versus Multiculturalism: An outdated dichotomy

Failure of multiculturalism? In Europe national governments are taking the distance from a multicultural discourse, coming back to a more “assimilationist” approach This trend corresponds to the prevailing attitudes in the public opinion and to the growing of the topic in the political agenda

The advent of multiculturalism Permanent settlement of immigrant populations in Europe Movements for civil rights and for the recognition of minorities Protest against the traditional assimilationist approach From demand for equality to identity pride, and the inversion of the stigma (black is beautiful) Islam as the main battlefield

Multiculturalism: a map of meanings Analytical dimension (the multiethnic society as a fact to understand) and normative dimension (demand for cultural rights) Moderate and more radical positions Multiculturalism as a strategy of inclusion and as a strategy of differentiation

Crisis of multiculturalism? Multiculturalist discourses have taken a U turn: after a peak of consensus in the ‘80- ’90s, they are now under attack Nowadays, many governments are again emphasizing the assimilation in the receiving society

The criticisms of multiculturalism It fosters “parallel lives”, separated communities, radical stances It legitimizes the oppression of women, young people, dissenters It treats “cultures” as solid and homogeneous entities; actually, they don’t exist in such a way

Neo-assimilationism Assimilation: it is the policy to make immigrants “similar” to the native population, and even to force them to behave as native citizens New emphasis on learning the national language and on its evaluation through examinations Language as test of political loyalty

Actual policies They have experienced a less dramatic change The multiculturalist rhetoric produced modest practical interventions, that did not deeply affect the structural dimension (inequalities, discrimination) The backlash against multiculturalism, as the emphasis on secularism, did not prevent the development of relationships with representatives of Islam in every country

The practical and local dimension Policies depicted as multiculturalist do not differ very much, in practice, from serious policies of integration The national experiences are not contrasting, as it is commonly believed (France vs. UK) Now, the change of discourse has limited practical effects Local policies differ from national (declared) policies (e.g. the case of Islam in France)

The issue of “diversity” While the fortune of multiculturalism is declining, many topics related to it are now reframed under the label of “diversity” Diversity is more widely accepted It connects ethnic diversity with other diversities: sexual, cultural, linguistic

Integration It could be defined as the process of becoming an accepted component of the society It does not mean “assimilation” It implies a process of mutual adaptation It encompasses structural and cultural elements (not only “interaction”) It gives responsibilities to both parties: immigrants and receiving society (not only “inclusion”) It occurs mainly at local level

Which future for multiculturalism We need another discourse, as in the case of social cohesion: probably the idea of diversity could help Many multiculturalist stances can be maintained with liberal arguments: freedom of wisdom, freedom of association, citizenship (and double citizenship), struggle against discrimination The topic of cultural rights has to be founded in forms which should be compatible with individual rights The public role of religions, as sites where norms and values are constructed, has to be reconsidered