Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare States

P. Kivisto, Ö. Wahlbeck, P. Kivisto, Ö. Wahlbeck

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780230360198
• eBook ISBN: 9781137318459
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This collection addresses the ways that Nordic countries have approached the issue of bringing ethnic minorities into the societal mainstream. With multicultural incorporation as an option, the authors explore the potential impact of the politics of identity in societies with social democratic welfare states committed to redistributive politics.

1

Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare States

Peter Kivisto and Östen Wahlbeck

Like numerous other Western democracies, the Nordic countries – each in their own distinctive ways – have embarked on what Will Kymlicka (2010: 257) has characterized as ‘experiments in multiculturalism’ in an attempt to find new ways of incorporating ethnic minorities into the larger society, sometimes explicitly as state-sponsored policies, sometimes as grassroots initiatives, sometimes as a combination of the two. The ‘experiment’ (or what might more appropriately be called strategy or policy) has been variously embraced enthusiastically by some politicians and sectors of the public, haltingly by others and resisted vigorously by yet others. As will be clear in the case studies presented in this book, multiculturalism in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden always competes with other modes of inclusion, with assimilation constituting the polar opposite. And given the fissures in public opinion as well as among political decision-makers, multiculturalism as an ideal type needs to be distinguished from ‘real’ multiculturalism, which tends to be compromised, limited in various ways, intertwined with competing modes of inclusion and tailored to the specific historical trajectories of each nation.

In this chapter we will frame the substantive issues addressed by the chapters that follow. We will begin by providing a brief sketch of the rise of multiculturalism in major liberal democracies, followed by an outline of a sociological approach to analysing multiculturalism as claims-making that has recently been proposed by Peter Kivisto (2012). This will set the stage for brief discussions of distinctive features of the Nordic context, foremost of which is the issue of whether or not the redistributive goals of the Nordic welfare model can be squared with the aspiration for the recognition of marginalized groups that is at the centre of a multicultural mode of incorporation. A demographic sketch of the Nordic countries will set the stage for the chapter’s final section, which will offer an overview of the 12 chapters to follow.

Multiculturalism in liberal democracies

Those nations that pioneered these multicultural ‘experiments’ were settler states that had experienced earlier waves of immigration and thus had prior experience dealing with newcomers. As nations founded by the conquest of indigenous peoples, they also had long histories shaped by policies and actions that they had undertaken that resulted in the marginalization and oppression of the original inhabitants of the land. And in some instances their societies were inhabited by ethnonational minorities that harboured aspirations either for greater autonomy within the existing nation-state framework or for independence.

It is perhaps not surprising that Canada was the country that stood in the forefront of efforts to construct state-sponsored multicultural policies, for it was not only a nation of immigrants but one with both an indigenous and an ethnonational population. Its multicultural turn commenced in the 1960s, once confronted with the realization that a new strategy for inclusion was needed to replace the homogenizing aspirations of earlier assimilationist strategies. This realization was driven home by the minority rights revolution (Skrentny 2002) that shaped the cultural politics of many liberal democracies in the second half of the past century – including the American Civil Rights Movement; Québécois, Scottish, Catalan and Basque nationalism; and indigenous rights movements among Aboriginals in Australia, First Nations Peoples in Canada and Native American in the US. Found in all of these movements was a demand for political voice (within or outside the current nation-state arrangement), economic equality and respect for the integrity of differential identities and group culture.

Multiculturalism bears a family resemblance to earlier notions of cultural pluralism – for example, those articulated by the public intellectual and Jewish-American philosopher Horace Kallen (1924) as the Great Migration in the US came to an end. However, multiculturalism should be understood, as Jeffrey C. Alexander (2006: 425–457) contends, as a new mode of incorporation of relatively recent origin. Rather than forging an expanded societal solidarity by overcoming diversity – as assimilation is generally seen as entailing – multicultural solidarity is achieved through the embrace of difference. Whereas the cultural pluralism of an earlier era also valorized difference, it tended to ignore the incorporation side of the coin. In contrast, multiculturalism is predicated on the idea that respecting difference and permitting or assisting it to persist over time can simultaneously foster societal integration, expanding and redefining the parameters of the societal community.

This is evident at the level of normative political philosophy, for major theorists of multiculturalism such as Charles Taylor (1994), Will Kymlicka (1995), John Rex (1996), Bhikhu Parekh (2000) and Tariq Modood (2007) have made clear the need for a shared set of core liberal values if ethnically, racially and religiously diverse groups within contemporary societies are to find a way to live together cooperatively and respectfully. It is precisely this part of multicultural theory that critics such as Brian Barry (2001) and Christian Joppke (2001) tend to ignore or downplay, leading to the conclusion that multiculturalism is inherently divisive. Given that there is nothing inevitable about multiculturalism, if it is pursued as the preferred mode of incorporation, a moral sensibility is at play and a moral choice has been made. Thus it is not surprising that, as many commentators have noted, much writing about multiculturalism has a normative cast to it (Kymlicka 2010: 257; Bloemraad, Korteweg and Yurdakul 2008; Joppke 2001; Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Of course, rejecting multiculturalism is also a normatively informed decision, one that both Barry and Joppke make on the basis of their grounding in a political philosophy based on liberal individualism.

Debates about whether or not multiculturalism is a fair and reasonable choice have been going on for some time, with their range including at one end of the spectrum carefully reasoned philosophical treatises and crude gutter polemics at the other. A compilation of the latter is contained in mass murderer Anders Breivik’s 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, which calls for the violent destruction of multiculturalism, which is seen as the ideology of European defeatists and of ‘Eurabia’, the result of the presumed Muslim ‘invasion’ of Europe. As this distillation of hate and violence indicates, it is an understatement to say that multiculturalism has proved to be both controversial and misunderstood.

In fact, opposition to multiculturalism not only emanates from the extremist fringes of the far right but has become part of the political agenda of many mainstream conservative political parties in Europe and elsewhere, and can also be seen to some extent among the progressive left. In this latter instance, opposition is based on the fear that multiculturalism leads to what Todd Gitlin (1995) referred to as the ‘twilight of common dreams’ (for a more recent version of this complaint from the social democratic left, see Judt [2010: 88]). In particular in the European context, the rise of right-wing movements and populist parties that are especially hostile to both minority groups – particularly immigrants – and multiculturalism is testimony to the fact that multiculturalism’s critics are a force to be reckoned with. At the moment, many go so far as to claim that multiculturalism has been to a large extent abandoned in settings where it once held sway, either as official governmental policy or, more often, as a generalized approach to integration that defends diversity rather than seeing it as an inevitable source of divisiveness (Brubaker 2001; Joppke 2004; McGhee 2008). Indeed, even Will Kymlicka (2012: 215) has drawn the pessimistic conclusion that in some countries ‘multiculturalism has been demonized beyond recognition’.

Steven Vertovec and Susanne Wessendorf, in the introduction to their book The Multiculturalism Backlash (2010: 6–12), itemize the main complaints against multiculturalism that have led to this demonization. Noting that the critics tend to view multiculturalism, both in philosophical and policy terms, as a monolithic identity, they fail to appreciate the internal debates, the revisions and the varieties of policy initiatives from one national context to another. Among the charges levelled against multiculturalism are the following:

1.It promotes a political correctness that calls for repressing genuine debate and the public airing of problems that arise as a result of ethnic diversity.

2.It is a manifestation of radical cultural relativism, which is a position that provides no moral basis for prohibiting practices that the larger society condemns, such as genital mutilation, forced marriages and honour killings.

3.It encourages self-segregation by promoting the value of minority cultures while simultaneously devaluing or denying the importance of a unifying national culture.

4.In the age of terror, the three preceding problems in tandem not only make it difficult to respond to Islamic militancy but actually contribute to it by facilitating the ongoing alienation of minority groups, including the youthful second generation.

Despite these persistent criticisms, Vertovec and Wessendorf proceed to argue that there is actually relatively little evidence to suggest that the idea of diversity is being repudiated, particularly by rolling back existing policies promoting diversity, a conclusion with which Kymlicka (2012) concurs. Indeed, there is evidence that multiculturalism – even if it’s called something else (see e.g. Meer and Modood [2012] on the topic of interculturalism versus multiculturalism) – has become institutionally embedded in liberal democracies.

Analysing multiculturalism sociologically

If true, multiculturalism is a social fact, in the Durkheimian sense of the term. As such it needs to be analysed sociologically, analytically separating this approach from not simply political polemics but more specifically normative political philosophy. To do so we would suggest that one can view multiculturalism in two reciprocal ways: i) as a form of claims-making by minority groups; and ii) as a way in which the dominant society and its political system accommodate to and manage diversity.

Multiculturalism as claims-making

Kivisto having written about multiculturalism as claims-making previously, we summarize the argument advanced in his article ‘We Really Are All Multiculturalists Now’ (2012). Claims-making occurs within the public spaces of civil society. The claims-makers are the more or less legitimate, contested or uncontested spokespersons for a particular type of social category that he refers to as a ‘community of fate’, with the claims being advanced predicated on concerns about the well-being of not only members of that community but the community itself – what he refers to as the fate of the community. This understanding of a community of fate – a term used in widely varied contexts and with no shared systematic definition – is influenced by Michael Dawson’s (1994) depiction of the belief in a ‘linked fate’ that informs much of African-American politics. Claims may be concerned with redistribution, recognition, or some combination of the two. The two audiences to which claims are directed are the public at large and the state, the latter being crucial when claims call for specific legislative actions, court decisions, or policy initiatives.

Five types of political claim can be distinguished: exemption, accommodation, preservation, redress and inclusion. All are predicated on the idea that the community of fate has what Avishai Margalit and Moshe Halbertal (1994) describe as a ‘right to culture’. Very briefly, the five types can be defined in the following way. Exemption refers to a demand for differential treatment of the group based on the conviction that such exemption is necessary if certain group practices deemed essential to cultural identity are to be permitted. Differential treatment takes the form of waiving the application of certain laws, rules and regulations. Accommodation is similar to exemption in its purpose but it usually does not require waivers. Rather, it entails finding mutually agreeable adjustments, particularly in schools and workplaces that make it possible for individuals to be integrated into the societal mainstream while also being true to their cultural identity.

In both cases, group members themselves are attempting to find ways in which they can promote the continuation of their cultural identity and community. Neither calls for the intervention of the state or actors in the larger society to play an active role in maintaining the viability of the group over time. This is precisely what is called for in the third type, preservation. Here the fear is that without a role played by the larger society, the future of the community is doomed. Calls to protect minority languages is a case in point, as sometimes the claims-makers call upon the state to fund school instruction in the native language, to create a bilingual society and so forth. As with the fourth type, redress, preservation tends to be more controversial than the first two. Redress claims are based on the conviction that grave injustices have been inflicted on the community of fate in the past – injustices that can only be remedied by compensatory actions. These are claims typically made by indigenous peoples and ethnonational minorities, a reflection of the argument advanced by Kymlicka (1995) about which sorts of right are available to which types of minority group.

The final claim – inclusion – is one that should surprise critics insofar as they see multiculturalism as encouraging the Balkanization of societies. But it is precisely this type of claim that most explicitly reveals the incorporative character of multiculturalism. Within this type there are two subtypes. Rainer Bauböck (2008: 3) describes the first as ‘celebration multiculturalism’, which constitutes a public appreciation of diversity in general and of the particular groups constituting a particular polity in particular. Whereas this type often takes the form of reaching out or appealing to the public rather than making demands, the second type can involve demands, appeals or both. What is called for here is an expansion of the boundaries of solidarity by finding room within those boundaries for stigmatized minorities without requiring them to become, in effect, clones of those already inside the boundaries. Inclusion can entail reconfiguring existing definitions of citizenship and of who is and who is not capable of becoming a citizen on equal terms with others. The American Civil Rights Movement is perhaps the paradigmatic instance of such a call for inclusion (Alexander 2006). It can also be seen in other arenas of social life. Thus the perceptual and discursive shift in the middle of the past century from viewing the US as a Protestant nation to seeing it as a Judeo-Christian one constituted the inclusion of Judaism under the sacred canopy of American religion and in so doing represented an expansion of that canopy. Similar contemporary calls to find room for Islam under that canopy, often articulated in terms of viewing it as one of the three Abrahamic religions, can be heard not only in the US but in other countries as well.

Multiculturalism as accommodation and management

As noted above, the two audiences at which claims-making is directed are the public at large and the state. Within both audiences are those who embrace multiculturalism in one version or another as well as those opposed to multiculturalism either in terms of various particulars or writ large, with many being located on a continuum between the two poles. The public are inevitably and invariably divided and public opinion is subject to change, leading to much social scientific research, the purpose of which is to ascertain the precise breakdown of attitudes in a particular country at a particular point in time, as well as to identify the cultural, demographic, economic, ideological, psychological and similar factors shaping particular attitudes. At issue here are attitudes towards minorities, be they indigenous, old minorities or new immigrants. Moreover, antipathy directed at members of minorities takes different forms, ranging from overt and aggressive hostility to expressions of prejudice that have been defined as subtle, as in the case of ‘symbolic racism’ and ‘laissez-faire racism’ (for an overview of these and related types, see Kivisto and Croll 2012: 26–60).

The idea of laissez-faire racism points to the fact that at issue are attitudes not simply towards members of minority groups but also regarding governmental policies designed to remedy the inequalities and marginalization experienced by various minority groups. Analytically separating attitudes towards minority groups from those about policies, such as those located under the rubric ‘multiculturalism’, means that there are four possible variations:

1.negative attitudes towards minorities and opposition to policies;

2.negative attitudes towards minorities but support for policies;

3.positive attitudes towards minorities but opposition to policies;

4.positive attitudes towards minorities and support for policies.

The first and the fourth appear to need little by way of explanation since they reflect ideological consistency, the first reflecting an exclusionary and intolerant worldview and the latter an inclusionary and tolerant one. The second strikes us as a null cell. The third, however, is a possibility, as the work of Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn (2009) tries to reveal in its study of attitudes regarding Dutch multiculturalism. Their contention is that most opponents of multiculturalism are, in fact, tolerant and inclusive. As with Sniderman’s earlier research on affirmative action in the US, their findings have been challenged. We need not go into this dispute here, our point is merely that the possibil...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare States
• 2. Multiculturalism: From Heterogeneities to Social (In)equalities
• 3. Multiculturalism ‘from Below’: Reflections of an Immigrant Ethnographer
• 4. Nordic Multiculturalism: Commonalities and Differences
• 5. Conceptual Change in Postwar Sweden: The Marginalization of Assimilation and the Introduction of Integration
• 6. Understanding Swedish Multiculturalism
• 7. Danish Anti-multiculturalism? The Significance of the Political Framing of Diversity
• 8. ‘Let’s Get Together’: Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Local Implications in Denmark
• 9. Multiculturalism or Assimilation? The Norwegian Welfare State Approach
• 10. Norwegian Multicultural Debates in a Scandinavian Comparative Perspective
• 11. Multiculturalism and Nationalism: The Politics of Diversity in Finland
• 12. Multicultural Finnish Society and Minority Rights
• 13. Reflections on the Future of Multicultural Inclusion in the Nordic Countries
• Index