Search results

Taking Moland’s article as a starting point, the chapter suggests that debates about “exporting” and “importing” concepts like multiculturalism need to be realigned with new theoretical and practical understandings of how identities work. We offer two primary categories of concerns. First, focusing on “exporting” multiculturalism inadvertently obscures complex intersectionalities between and among various identities, including ethnic and religious identities, gender and sexuality, and issue of power in state, local, and global North/South hierarchies. Second, multiculturalism’s focus on outcomes – in particular, achieving an appreciation for “other” cultures – is an outdated approach to addressing difference. Taken together, we argue that multiculturalism is an outmoded framework that does not map neatly onto the lived experience of identity or on how conflicts are resolved and is thus ineffective as a framework for conflict-prevention work. We suggest that research on reconciliation and conflict prevention instead could be situated in ways that view identities as porous, complex, contradictory, multiple, and varied. In this light, identities are messy rather than clear-cut; they can surge and retreat in relevance for individuals and communities at any given time, such that their value for an individual at any one point may not be easy to consciously articulate. Understanding identities in this way has implications for pedagogical interventions. Rather than pursuing interventions designed to promote an outcome of equal and celebratory acceptance of defined “others,” we call for interventions focused on process, thereby equipping individuals with the skills to continually work toward co-existence in communities where conflicts are marked by repeated fractures, tension, and messy identities.

In 1983, in typically Parisian manner, J. F. Lyotard claimed that redistributive conflict had gone out of fashion, with the focus of postmodern conflict revolving increasingly less around issues of resource allocation. Contemporary societies were having to deal with le différend, with horizontal conflicts rooted in heterogeneous languages, instances, and rules. The concern and claims of one group could not be understood within the languages of the other (Belohradski, 1990; Lyotard, 1983).

Discourse among the media and general public has associated the term ‘multicultural’ with multiculturalism; however, Tiryakian (2003, p. 22) argues that the two should be seen as analytically distinct but empirically complementary. In its demographic-descriptive meaning, the term multicultural refers to cultural or ethnic diversity or the coexistence of different cultural groups within a particular locality; in this sense it represents heterogeneity over homogeneity. This descriptive approach, adopted by governments and public officials in Australia, describes those spaces shared by a variety of groups as ‘multicultural’. I want to confine this particular construction of multicultural to the category of ‘multiethnic’. On the other hand, the word ‘multiculturalism’ alludes to a normative category and refers to philosophical arguments regarding the legitimacy of claims surrounding the recognition of particular identity groups. The normative view accepts that pluralism and diversity are good in themselves and assumes that all difference should be valued and given a voice in the public realm. This version of multiculturalism has been evident in the United States, but has come under increasing attack by neo-conservatives. In its programmatic-political dimension, couched in liberal terms in Australia, multiculturalism pertains to policies designed to respond to the problems posed by diversity. Advocates of such policies believe that they foster toleration and equal opportunity. Another category entails an attitude towards the cultural ‘other’ and refers to an inter-subjective mode of being. The typology constructed here is based on a continuum consisting of monocultural, multiethnic, multiculturalism, and multicultural and will be used to interpret a city's relationship to its diverse population. This typology also raises some interesting questions. How many different cultural groups need to exist within a designated urban space before a city can legitimately or authentically represent itself as ‘multicultural’? Can one judge to what extent a city is multicultural based on the type of social interaction that exists among culturally-diverse groups? If multiculturalism extends beyond a demographic phenomenon, then it is possible to distinguish multiethnic cities from multicultural cities. These questions and issues can also shed light on the politics of representation.

Purpose – This chapter reflects upon my experiences as a PhD researcher examining the portrayal of multiculturalism in contemporary Welsh- and English-language fiction about Wales. It discusses my emotions regarding my identities as a second-language Welsh speaker and as an early career researcher, and how they affected my participation in this field.

Methodology/Approach – The chapter draws on my PhD research, which examined how different cultural groups were portrayed in fiction as ‘others’ due to Wales’s complex linguistic and cultural position. This involved analysing contextual research about multiculturalism in Wales to explore discourses of belonging and alienation. This chapter reflects upon my emotional responses to the field as a Welsh speaker and new academic, and how this in turn affected my research.

Findings – Embracing my changing relationship with my Welsh-speaking identity, I reflect on how my research touched upon contradictory feelings I had about the Welsh language and Welshness. I discuss the effects my changing feelings over time about linguistic hybridity, and my growing confidence as a young academic, had on my engagement with different texts and writers. This is discussed in light of the relationships I was able to form with some creative authors and academics in Wales’s close-knit literary and scholarly society.

Originality/Value – This chapter argues that confronting their own emotional engagements with their research topics enables researchers to better understand why certain subjects are so contested. It can also prepare researchers to communicate their ideas effectively in the difficult debates that arise around such subjects.

“Multiculturalism” is a troubled concept, in a political as well as in a scholarly sense. What has triggered this paper is the authors’ experience of the hardships involved in understanding the power structures embedded in societies termed “multicultural”; we find ourselves equipped with a set of conceptual tools that are confusing, and with policy makers that compound that confusion. This presentation takes as its point of departure the tension engendered at the interface between popular democracy ground rules and minority rights, and turns in its second part to current political vocabulary in Norway. Thematically, the discussion moves from the intricacies of “cultural rights” to a closer look at the bias implicit in the benevolent phrase “fair terms of integration.” The suggestion is that hidden underneath the niceties, we find the unavoidable and seemingly unspeakable dilemmas of a welfare state confronted with non-economic, humanitarian principles. Let us be clear about one thing, however; the aim of this presentation is not to solve problems, but to face them.

In this section I consider different models of nationhood, the diffusion of new multicultural models, and barriers to the spread of new models rooted in nations' pasts and the current fears of immigrants from the Middle East.

The construct of global mindset is one that has gained greater attention recently. This chapter focuses on contextual factors that impact the development of a global mindset. Specifically, the focus is on the cultural context of Canada and the factors in the Canadian context that bridge the gap between the theoretical and the practical, and provide both opportunities and challenges related to developing a global mindset in this context. Developing a global mindset on the part of leaders takes place in particular contexts. In this chapter, the distinguishing aspects of the Canadian cultural context are reviewed. Specifically, the Canadian values of (1) individualism/collectivism balance; (2) egalitarianism; (3) caution, diffidence, dependence and non-violence; (4) consensus building; (5) regionalism; (6) multiculturalism; (7) particularism and tolerance; and (8) deference to authority are shown to be important in this cultural context to the development of a global mindset on the part of leaders. While these factors provide many benefits to supporting such development, they also represent unique cultural challenges for leaders.