Multiculturalism: Mundane Yet Politically Problematic?
The large-scale translocation of people over the globe stemming from colonialism, the labour migration of a āglobalisedā world economy, and the large-scale refugee crises prompted by violent conflict have resulted in the fact that for most states in the world āmulticulturalismā is, as McGoldrick (2005: 34) points out, a statistical fact, even where it sharply contradicts the communitarian imaginary around which national identity is often constructed. Certainly, for all Western democratic states, and increasingly for all cities and regions of those states, multiculturalism is more and more a āmundane realityā (Hall 2000) in that populations are becoming increasingly diverse in terms of ethnicity, national family origins and faith. Yet, apparently multiculturalism is facing ācrisesā (Lentin and Titley 2011), has supposedly been rejected by states that embraced it politically, such as the Netherlands (Sniderman and Hagendoorn 2009) and the UK (Back et al. 2002), and has been condemned by major political leaders as an āutter failureā (Cameron 2011; Weaver 2010).
This apparently confusing disjuncture can, of course, be explained by distinguished sociologist Stuart Hallās ādouble meaningā of multiculturalism; here the term represents both a mundane reality of increasing ethnic diversity in society and, separately, specific policy approaches states may (or may not) take to address that reality of ethnic diversity and the position of distinct ethnic, faith and racial groups within society. Whilst the relationship between the state and such groups conceived of as ethnic or religious minorities is configured very differently in different jurisdictions and is partially dependent on the characteristic origins of diversity (e.g. whether it is the product of White settler colonialism or economic migration), the dilemmas of reconciling group and individual rights, and of reconciling respect for difference with the desire for social or national cohesion appear universal. āMulticulturalismā as a political project or practice, as opposed to an ideological stance or a statistical fact, has taken many forms in different states, but has been subjected to increasingly harsh criticism across the globe as the politics of difference has become a fulcrum of national politics. The assumption underpinning many of the critiques, both academic (Lentin and Titley 2011) and political (cf the Munich Security Conference speeches of Cameron and Merkel cited above) is that tolerance of diversity has been demonstrated to be socially corrosive globally and trans historically. Indeed, some have argued that the growing ethnic diversity is indeed increasingly problematic for societies because of the context of post-industrial economic decline (Schaeffer 2014), the nature of welfare settlements underpinning many democratic states (Goodhart 2004, 2017) and the supposed incompatibility of Muslim minorities to the broader value base and āway of lifeā of these states (Scheffer 2011).
What This Book Isnāt About and What It Is About
At this point, you may well be thinking āOh no! Another book about the crises and supposed failures of multiculturalismā! Donāt worryāthatās not what this book is about. This is partially because there are already many good and important books (e.g. Lentin and Titley 2011; Modood 2013) and journal articles available on this, both about the changing multiculturalist philosophies, political discourses and policy models of specific states and ones that offer helpful and insightful internationally comparative analysis of such issues. Itās also because that we didnāt want to write such a book. Our motivation for instead writing the book that we have produced was twofold. First, the international policy and academic discourse over multiculturalismās supposed failure, defeat, retreat (or any another negative verb you may want to insert) has focussed heavily on states that have supposedly ārecantedā on multiculturalist policies, such as Britain. Within such states, there has also been a focus on the supposed wider social failure of multiculturalist ethnic diversity itself in situated, geographical āfailed spaces of multiculturalismā (Khosrokhavar 2016; Jones 2013), for instance, the M62 corridor region of northern England and towns within it, such as Oldham, Bradford and Dewsbury. The fact that all three of the authors live, work and research in this āM62 corridorā region has given us a particular, personal motivation to examine the specific and situated histories and current realities of multiculturalism, in both its meanings, and of how these fevered debates about the crisis, decline and death of multiculturalism might be understood in this space and place. Whilst the book therefore focuses on a specific and highly contested region of northern England, its concern with supposed āfailed spaces of multiculturalismā is an internationally relevant one. As Scheffer (2011: 177) identifies: āthe social reality in Malmo, say, does not differ from that of Bradford, Marseille, Rotterdam or Frankfurtā.
In particular, we were driven by two key research questions. First, why and how has the M62 corridor as a region come to symbolise (at least in political and media discourse) Britainās supposed problems with āmulticulturalismā, and how accurate is this characterisation? As discussed below, this has certainly grown from the mid-1980s onwards, when āMuslimsā, ethnic tensions and the north of England as a region took centre stage in political and media discourse over British multiculturalism and has then accelerated markedly in the post-2001 era of concern over āparallel livesā and Islamist extremism. Second, how have state multiculturalist (law, policy and practice) approaches to cultural pluralism and the identities involved in this changed and adapted in the M62 corridor over time, from the 1960s until present? What events and changing perceptions have fuelled such changes? When explored in the context of theories of cultural and legal pluralism, what are the characteristics of UK policy that can be described as āmulti-cultural? In particular, how have characteristics of state policy that can be described as āmulticulturalā been experienced, understood and operationalised distinctively in this area of the north of England?
These overarching research questions have shaped the bookās focus and analytical framework, which is outlined in more detail below. The first key aspect of it is this notion of the M62 corridor as one of the āfailed spaces of multiculturalismā (Khosrokhavar 2016; Jones 2013). Here, we acknowledge that there has been a lot of important empirical academic research over several decades about the community experience of ethnic diversity and multiculturalist policy work in specific towns and cities of the north of England, such as Bradford, Dewsbury, Oldham and Liverpool (Ben-Tovim et al. 1986; Kalra 2000; Thomas 2011; Husband et al. 2016; Fazakarley 2017). We know this, because we have contributed to that body of work through our own research (see below), as well as drawn on it in our own writing. It struck us, however, that there is something of an evidential and discursive gap in the multiculturalism debates between national (and supposedly uniform) British models and experience of multiculturalism and that of very specific, situated geographical locations. This gap we identify and focus on here is the regional one, in particular the area of the north of England popularly known as the āM62 corridorā after the motorway joining Hull in the east to Liverpool in the west, directly connecting the key cities of Leeds and Manchester in between and skirting the supposed āhotspotsā of failed multiculturalism such as Bradford, Dewsbury, Oldham and Rochdale, along with road spurs that connect to the infamous towns of Rotherham...