Cities have always been places where people of diverse origins cohabit and pursue common goalsâquest for a better life, freedom from the constraints of tradition, new forms of communityâin spite of their differences. In this sense there is nothing new about the phenomenon of intercultural cities. In recent years, however, demographic changes in cities in many parts of the world have led to increasing concerns about interethnic tensions, social inequality and racial discrimination. One response to these challenges has been to focus on the dynamics and potential benefits of intercultural policy and practice. In fact, intercultural policy for cities has become a dynamic area of research and policy design. Some authors have even suggested that intercultural models represent a totally new approach to the problems of social inclusion and cohesion, nothing less than a new paradigm. By virtue of their intermediate statusâneither national nor regional, at the same time global and localâcities are in a particularly good position to formulate policy frameworks that will contribute to the well-being of all citizens, regardless of their origins. Certain cities have made significant advances in this domain, but until now very little work has been done to understand the underlying principles and processes behind the creation of intercultural policies and programs.
In May 2014, the Laboratory for Research on Intercultural Relations (LABRRI) at the University of Montreal, in collaboration with the Council of Europe and the City of Montreal, organized an international forum on intercultural dynamics and intercultural policy frameworks in cities. The Montreal forum brought together policymakers and intercultural experts from Europe and North America in order to compare intercultural policies and practices in cities that are affected by and concerned with contact between increasingly diverse populations and communities. The overall goal of the forum was to facilitate communication between researchers and practitioners in their efforts to make cities more inclusive by leveraging recent advances in the field of intercultural policy and practice (for an overview of this emerging field, see White this volume), but it was also intended to generate knowledge about the conditions, obstacles and strategies that are required for the design and implementation of effective intercultural policies in cities.
By bringing together recent advances in the areas of urban planning and intercultural theory, this volume sets out to explore the political and social potential of intercultural cities. The term âinterculturalâ has many meanings, and these meanings can change according to the context. For the purposes of clarity, âinterculturalâ refers not only to the organic and sometimes chaotic social reality of large urban centers, with people from different social and cultural backgrounds interacting in often unexpected and unpredictable ways. It also refers to the efforts of local actors (policymakers, city planners, community organizers, academics, etc.) in cities across the globe to promote intercultural principles and policies as a means of fighting discrimination and promoting social cohesion within and between communities. Intercultural policy for cities generally refers to initiatives that raise awareness about the advantages of diversity but also seeks to reduce the negative impact of discrimination at the same time as it encourages positive interactions between people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. As I explain elsewhere (see White, this volume), intercultural cities are different from âmulticultural citiesâ in terms of the way that they envision and plan for social cohesion (Qadeer 2016), but the two also have a great deal in common compared with cities that either ignore diversity or refuse to take diversity into account altogether (Wood and Landry 2008).
In some cases, city governments have been able to organize programs and policies that facilitate the emergence of an integrated, multisector approach to intercultural action, or an intercultural policy framework. Unfortunately, we still have limited knowledge about the underlying principles of these frameworks and the processes involved in their implementation. The texts presented here constitute a first step in this direction. According to one recent study there are three areas that remain for the most part unexplored in the literature on integration policy in cities: a comparative understanding of smaller or suburban cities, an analysis of the situation of cities over time and international comparisons between cities (Fourot 2015). This volume addresses all three of these issues, with a particular focus on intercultural policy and practice. In addition to this general objective of understanding how intercultural policy frameworks function, the current volume has three specific objectives:
- Mobilize knowledge about the design and implementation of intercultural policy frameworks for cities
- Develop tools for comparative analysis that will be of use to policymakers and researchers in the implementation of intercultural policies and programs
- Facilitate collaboration between cities but also between researchers and practitioners interested in intercultural policy
After giving some background on the rationale and the content of the Montreal forum, I will look more closely at what can be seen as its primary outcomes which include but are not limited to this edited volume. I will finish with an overview of the contents of the volume, including some words about the different audiences for the volume.
1.1 Background on the Montreal Forum
The idea for the Montreal forum on intercultural cities emerged following a series of informal exchanges between members of LABRRI, officials from the City of Montreal and representatives from the Council of Europe during meetings organized by the Council of Europe in Barcelona in September 2012 and again in Dublin in February 2013. The Intercultural Cities programme (ICC) of the Council of Europe has played a central role in bringing together not only city officials from different parts of the globe but also various types of actors involved in the field of intercultural research (policymakers, planners, policy analysts, researchers, practitioners, elected officials, community organizers). Through specific programs (such as the Antirumors network), evaluative tools (such as the ICC Index) and also its ongoing support of cities and city-based networks, the Council of Europe has been a pioneer and a leader in the intercultural cities movement. The publication of this volume coincides with the tenth anniversary of ICC, and the forum in Montreal is part of the story of how ICCâwhose primary mission was limited to the member-states of the European Unionâbecame involved in intercultural policy on a global scale.
Montreal was the ideal location for a workshop of this type. To begin with, the City of Montreal has nearly 30 years of experience in policy research and planning related to social and cultural diversity (see Massana and Rioux, this volume and Allard, this volume). This experience, which in 2011 was recognized by the Council of Europeâs Intercultural Cities programme (Montreal placed fifth in the intercultural city index), reflects the desire of different actors and institutions in Montreal to make the city more inclusive and to promote policies and programs that go beyond the traditional approaches based on raising awareness about diversity and discrimination. In many ways the Montreal forum laid the groundwork for meaningful collaboration across the Atlantic since Montreal was the first city in Canada (and the second in North America, following Mexico City) to join the ICC network. More so than almost any region in the Americas, QuĂ©bec has a long history of engagement with intercultural ideals and policies (Emongo and White 2014), which is part of the reason why cities such as Montreal have been so active in terms of thinking about intercultural theory and practice.
The conversations between LABRRI and ICC concerning the possibility of organizing a forum about intercultural policy frameworks garnered considerable interest on both sides of the Atlantic. During our discussions on this topic, it was agreed that (1) there is relatively little information about how cities interested in intercultural approaches go about creating policy-based initiatives or frameworks and (2) that the indicators that are currently available for cities to evaluate their performance in this area do not lend themselves easily to comparisons. Following these observations it was decided that an international forum would be organized in Montreal that would focus on the process by which intercultural policy frameworks are conceptualized, created and implemented. It was suggested that having access to this information would not only help certain cities gain recognition for their efforts in this area, but would also help other cities understand how to trace their own path to intercultural policy and practice.
1.2 Content of the Forum
Through a series of presentations, roundtables and interactive breakout sessions that lasted over a period of three days, participants were asked to present recent findings on key aspects of intercultural policy in cities. This meant that cities should present not only the different components of particular frameworks or policies, but also the obstacles most often encountered during design and implementation and the strategies used to create internal and external alliances. In preparation for the forum, the organizers identified five key elements in order to facilitate discussions during the forum:
- Participation of stakeholders (policymakers, community organizers, media, citizens)
- Gaps (real or potential) between policy and realities on the ground
- Study and analysis of interactions (documentation, efficacy, promotion)
- Recent advances in the assessment of policies and programs
- Experiences with intercultural cities networks at the regional or national level
Participants were asked to emphasize the processes by which intercultural city experts have been able to go beyond the challenges of monocultural structures and paradigms by supporting initiatives that promote improved access for minorities and positive, sustained social interactions. More specifically, forum participants were asked to think about two concrete aspects of intercultural policy in order to facilitate different types of comparative analysis: (1) examples of âknotsâ or obstacles that constrain the elaboration or acceptance of intercultural models and (2) the question of âscaleâ or the different levels of political and social action that can have an impact on outcomes.
Following a brief presentation on the first day which set out the objectives of the forum and a certain number of key concepts, forum participants heard introductory remarks and welcoming statements from the City of Montreal and from representatives of the Council of Europe. Each day of the forum was organized around three different activities: (1) a brief presentation of the city-based case study for two of the cities that were invited to participate in the forum (Botkyrka, Oslo, Barcelona, Reggio Emilia, Lewisham, NeuchĂątel); (2) breakout sessions containing more detailed information about the two cities presented earlier and exchange with forum participants on the details of the particular city under consideration; (3) presentation and discussion of different areas of intercultural practice and policy in Montreal (drawing from local municipal and community-based partners in collaboration with researchers from the LABRRI).
Forum participants came not only from the world of municipal policy and planning, but also from a variety of community-based settings and academic disciplines. Activities during the forum were organized in mixed working groups in order to ensure a balance between researchers and practitioners as well as between guests (mostly from cities in Europe) and hosts (mostly from QuĂ©bec). Presentations were given in French and in English with simultaneous translation. For the interactive breakout sessions, forum participants were asked to choose the sessions that they wanted to attend, but they were allowed to move freely between the different workshops. During coffee breaks and lunch, forum participants were free to discuss topics presented throughout the day, and they were also encouraged to visit a series of poster presentations that were prepared by researchers and students from LABRRI (for more information, see http://villeinterculturelle.net/recherche-2/le-forum-de-montreal/). Forum participants were generally very enthusiastic about the content of the forum, but they were also struck by a number of important challenges associated with intercultural policy (especially in the context of international comparisons). Many participants expressed an interest in having access to shared tools and potentially developing international guidelines for creation and implementation of intercultural policy, though this proposition proved to be much more complex than initially expected (see White, âThe Future of Intercultural Citiesâ, this volume).
1.3 Outcomes of the Forum
Initially the forum set out with the idea of producing three tangible outcomes: a collection of city-based cases studies on intercultural policy formation in cities, an analytical framework that would make it possible to make comparisons across cities and a preliminary set of principles for orienting intercultural policy work by cities. Below I will discuss the city-based case studies in order to give the reader some idea about how they were conceived and how they came to be published in this volume. The second intended outcome (an analytical framework) ended up being more of a tool than a framework, but it was useful in terms of giving forum participants guidelines with regards to how to organize the research and writing for the city-based case studies. In the end, the third intended outcome (a declaration of shared principles) was not realistic, probably because of the considerable degree of variation between municipal histories and contexts, but this point did lead to fruitful discussion near the end of the forum (for further discussion of these outcomes, see White, âThe Future of Intercultural Citiesâ, this volume).
For many of the contributors to this volume, the idea of writing detailed objective accounts of how cities came to be experts in intercultural policy seemed like a daunting task, in part because policy initiatives very often straddled historical periods, political administrations and municipal services or departments. This meant that the authors of the case studies did not necessarily have easy access to all the information that was required to write the case study. There was also the difficulty associated with the fact that the case studies presented in this volume are neither academic texts (with complete autonomy from municipal government) nor official city documents (which would have involved certain constraints on the content), and thus each case study required a different type and a different degree of consultation with local city officials.
It is safe to assume that the composition of the writing team may have an impact on the content or on the reception of the case studies. In several cases, the text was written by a team composed of one city official and one intercultural expert (as in the case of Oslo and Botkyrka) or one city official and several intercultural experts (Barcelona). This dy...