Abstract
In this special issue on “Multiculturalism During Challenging Times,” we present six articles focused on multiculturalism as it is currently practiced or implemented in Canada, across Europe, in Mauritius, and in South Korea. We apply SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis to assess the strengths and weaknesses of its application and the opportunities and threats it presents for the countries studied here. Strengths: We find that multiculturalism fosters national identity, promotes cultural tolerance and modernization, and assists with the incorporation of cultural minorities. Weaknesses: At the same time, multiculturalism also creates “faultlines” along cultural and religious groups, could promote separate and parallel lives, and could pose a challenge to equality in liberal societies. Opportunities: Multiculturalism has the potential to be used as a tool for attracting talents, a source of competitive advantage for nations, and a discourse for politicians to score political gains. Threats: Multiculturalism also has the potential to be perceived as incompatible with Western, liberal values, a burden to the state welfare, and challenge existing national identities. We conclude with some suggestions for future research to extend our understanding of multiculturalism within the context of increasing globalization and greater international migration.
We kidded ourselves a while. We said: “They won’t stay, [after some time] they will be gone,” but this isn’t reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other . . . has failed, utterly failed.
Since Merkel’s bold declaration, almost every academic article about multiculturalism has made reference to it. Scholars and commentators have argued on both sides of multiculturalism, with one camp arguing that it undermines social cohesion, weakens national identity, and challenges core liberal values (e.g., Koopmans, 2013; Scruton, 2010), and the other camp arguing that it promotes nation-building and positive immigrant integration (e.g., Bloemraad & Wright, 2014; Moran, 2011). In fact, much of the rhetoric and debates surrounding multiculturalism can be attributed to how multiculturalism is understood and implemented, and whether it is successful in achieving its explicit or implicit objectives. In introducing this special issue on “Multiculturalism During Challenging Times,” we first review the conceptualization of multiculturalism as it is adopted and used in scholarship and in practice. 1 We then synthesize the findings in the articles for this special issue by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of multiculturalism, as well as the opportunities and threats multiculturalism presents, as argued by our contributors. In assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of multiculturalism, we consider its application in Canada, across Europe (especially but not exclusively in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom), in Mauritius, and in South Korea. We then conclude with some directions for future work.
Multiple Conceptualizations of Multiculturalism
Berry, Kalin, and Taylor (1977) describe multiculturalism as having three dimensions: (a) a reflection of a country’s ethnocultural demographic diversity, (b) a political philosophy aimed at recognizing and accommodating the differences that result from demographic diversity, and (c) a public policy instrument to help achieve objectives based on the above political philosophy (cf. Berry & Sam, 2013).
Ethnocultural diversity, or demographic multiculturalism, has grown dramatically in many countries as a result of globalization, worker migration, family reunification, and forced migration by those displaced due to political violence, environmental disaster, or collapsing economies (Berry, 2013a). Growth in demographic diversity has occurred in historic countries of immigration, such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, as well as across Europe and into Asia, spreading to new immigration countries, from Denmark through to South Korea. Beyond numbers, we also see rising diversity. In Canada, for example, immigrants historically came primarily from Europe, but Asia and the Pacific region have been Canada’s principal sources of immigrants over the past 25 years. At present, 7 out of 10 immigrants to Canada come from Asia and the Middle East, and 80% of immigrants report a mother tongue other than English or French, Canada’s two official languages (Statistics Canada, 2011a, 2011b). Thus, Canada is currently—and increasingly—“multicultural” as a result of its ethnocultural diversity. Demographic diversity is also occurring, albeit on a more modest scale, in South Korea, a nation that has not previously considered itself a country of immigration. As Kim (2015, this issue) writes, as of late 2012, 3% of the Korean population was foreign-born, almost 1.5 million individuals.
Multiculturalism can also come from long-standing diversity. This arises from the coexistence of ethnocultural groups that have lived with each other for generations (such as in Mauritius; see Ng Tseung-Wong & Verkuyten, 2015, in this issue). Indeed, important streams of multiculturalism as political philosophy center on accommodation of historic ethnic, cultural, racial, or religious minority groups. Nevertheless, public and academic debates over multiculturalism generate the most heat when focused on immigration, as with Merkel’s statement above.
The presence of ethnocultural diversity necessitates that host societies (or the dominant group) deal with groups who are different from themselves. Diversity orientations encompass the beliefs and attitudes espoused by host country nationals regarding the treatment of ethnocultural groups, their status, and how they should be incorporated into the host country society (cf. Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014). Berry (1997) suggests that diversity orientations can take the form of assimilation (i.e., an expectation for immigrants or ethnic minorities to take on the culture of the dominant group), separation (i.e., when minorities refuse to adopt the dominant group culture), 2 marginalization (i.e., when the dominant group rejects the culture of minority group members), and integration or pluralism (i.e., when the dominant group and minority group members adopt and adapt to each other’s cultures). The latter, for Berry, is linked to a second dimension of multiculturalism, namely multiculturalism as a political philosophy.
Third, multiculturalism is also a vehicle for the government and organizations—from public institutions like schools to corporations or private nonprofit groups—to formulate policies based on their view of and attitudes toward multiculturalism. In some cases, “policy” represents an absence of multiculturalism policy making, such as with Denmark’s assimilationist approach (Meer, Mouritsen, Faas, & de Witte, 2015, this issue). Other countries (or organizations) implement a wide-ranging set of policies and practices. This is the case for government policy in Australia and Canada and, perhaps surprisingly, in South Korea (Banting & Kymlicka, 2013; Kim, 2015, this issue).
More recently, Bloemraad and Wright (2014) added a fourth dimension to encompass public discourse on multiculturalism. The discourse can take the form of political speeches such as Angela Merkel’s declaration that multiculturalism failed in Germany, to official policy positions such as the Government of Canada’s adoption of multiculturalism in 1971. It can also include discourse articulated by civil society actors, mass media, far-right parties not in government, and others who influence public debate. For those in government, the intent of public discourse is to signal a government’s meaning or direction on multiculturalism to its citizenry. For example, rhetoric by Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and former French President Nikolas Sarkozy (see Daily Mail Reporter, 2011) demonstrate how politicians craft narratives to influence views on their country’s approaches toward multiculturalism (see Meer et al., 2015, this issue). Even in Canada, where multiculturalism is adopted and celebrated, a shift in public discourse, from cultural preservation and mutual accommodation to civic integration and common citizenship has been observed in ministerial speeches (see Winter, 2014). Canada’s recent incrementalist approach 3 to change in multicultural discourse, however, attracts far less attention and controversy compared with Merkel and others’ dramatic statements about postmulticulturalism or interculturalism policies (see Bloemraad & Wright, 2014, for a discussion). Suffice to say, the general public often have so little information and understanding of issues (Converse, 1964, 1970), that public opinion toward multiculturalism is often dependent on the framing and narrative crafted by political leaders (see Helbling, Reeskens, & Stolle, 2013; Hooghe & de Vroome, 2015, this issue).
SWOT Analysis
In synthesizing the contributions of the six articles that examine Canada, Europe, Mauritius, and South Korea, we draw from a tool commonly used in business and management for assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of multiculturalism. SWOT analysis is often conducted to assess a firm’s product, plan, or strategy, although it has been used on individuals, industries, and countries (Helms & Nixon, 2010; also see Ghazinoory, Abdi, & Azadegan-Mehr, 2011, for other applications). In applying SWOT analysis to the collection of articles in this special issue, we assess both the strength and weaknesses of multiculturalism as it is currently practiced or implemented, and the opportunities and threats it presents in countries that adopt multiculturalism. Since multiculturalism can take various forms (i.e., demographic, philosophy/ideology, policy, or public discourse), we will specify the context in which it is being discussed. Following Cox (1994), we also use the term ethnocultural to refer to the diversity among different groups and “ethnic minority” or “racial minority” depending on the national context in which it is discussed.
Strengths
Fostering National Identity
As a public policy, multiculturalism has been used as a tool to foster national unity and identity. In 1971, Canada officially adopted a multiculturalism policy to unite French- and English-speaking Canadians and to incorporate other new Canadians (see Winter, 2011). This policy was also adopted, in part, because Canada abandoned its “White Canada” policy and opened its doors to immigrants from non-European countries. In this regard, Canada wanted a “new” nationalism that moved beyond an identity rooted in the British Commonwealth in order to “bring in” French-speaking Canadians, and also to empower ethnocultural minority groups who came to the country through migration (also see Mann, 2012). The strategy to make multiculturalism a part of Canadian identity has largely been a success: in a recent poll, 84% of Canadians held favorable views of multiculturalism (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2010), and residents list multiculturalism as the second greatest source of pride for Canadians (after freedom/democracy; Adams, 2007).
Likewise, multiculturalism has long been considered to be a national identity in Mauritius where distinct ethnic groups live alongside each other. Mauritians adopt the “fruit salad” metaphor (in contrast with the “melting pot” metaphor in the United States) to stress the absence of pressures to assimilate into a monoculture identity and instead celebrate a multiethnic society (see Ng Tseung-Wong & Verkuyten, 2015, this issue). Thus, as an ideology, multiculturalism in Mauritius allows the recognition and maintenance of ethnic identities, which in turn promotes a sense of belonging and equal participation in society among all ethnocultural groups. In this regard, multiculturalism has successfully reduced the in-group/out-group distinction among multiethnic Mauritians, effectively converting local attitudes from “they are so different to us” to “we are all different.” Although rooted in different sources of demographic multiculturalism, Canada and Mauritius have both been successful in crafting a discourse around multiculturalism as a national identity.
Promotion of Cultural Tolerance and Modernization
Unlike Canada or Mauritius, South Korea (simply referred to as “Korea” from here on) does not have a long history of multiethnic and multilingual populations coexisting with each other. As a result of low birth rates, Korea began accepting immigrants (primarily foreign brides and workers) to stem declining population, an aging workforce, and to attract highly skilled foreign workers (see Kim, 2015, this issue). Public discourse on multiculturalism (damunhwa) took off around 2005 as Korean leaders declared that multiculturalism is now a demographic reality (dainjong damunhwa sahoe). However, Korea is a largely ethnocentric society, and Koreans are obsessed with “blood purity.” As the number of foreign brides grow, legislators have responded by enacting policies to promote a society more tolerant of ethnic and “blood” differences. Measures such as antidiscrimination efforts and changes in civic education—where ethnic homogeneity is deemphasized, and a multicultural Korea and values of tolerance are taught—were implemented to embrace non-Korean immigrants into its society.
Korean leaders have also constructed a narrative to advance multiculturalism as part and parcel of national development, despite a largely homogenous society (roughly 3% of the population are non-Koreans; see Kim, 2015, this issue). Although Korea has achieved significant economic success, Koreans view themselves largely as a “middle country,” not yet perceived to be on par with Western, liberal democracies such as the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. This perspective is formed on the basis that Koreans do not espouse the same values, such as respect for human rights and tolerance that are embraced by other advanced, developed economies. Thus, to enhance its international reputation, Korea has adopted multiculturalism because it is seen as an ideal in the West. Indeed, while the European countries of the Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy have retreated from multiculturalism (see Bloemraad & Wright, 2014, for evidence), Korea is embracing multiculturalism as part of a modernization project in which Korea aspires to be perceived as an advanced, developed nation. National identity is again implicated, but for crafting a modern notion of Korea for both external and internal audiences.
Incorporation of Ethnocultural Minorities
As a colonizer, the United Kingdom has had a long history of accepting immigrants from many of its former colonies. As a result, it places significant emphasis on citizenship and allegiance to the crown as a symbol of unity and identity. The United Kingdom does not espouse an official multiculturalism policy centered on culture as much as focusing on the removal of barrier to integration and, increasingly, common citizenship. Thus, the United Kingdom has taken measures to promote equality in participation in the labor market for racial minorities through equal access and equality of opportunity measures. The present government has balanced that with the promotion of social integration (or postmulticulturalism; see Adachi, 2011, for a review), yet British policy, according to Meer et al. (2015, this issue), remains multicultural in various ways. Indeed, the anti-immigrant (and anti-minorities) sentiment that has swept across Europe (see Koopmans, 2013; Kymlicka, 2010), has resulted in a sometimes tension-filled balance between multiculturalism and “civic integration,” but not in a whole-scale retreat from multiculturalism, at least in the United Kingdom. The shift to postmulticulturalism or interculturalism evident in some other European countries, and to a lesser extent in Canada, appears to flow from disquiet over immigration, particularly by those of Muslim faith.
Weaknesses
Creation of “Faultlines”
Faultlines are “hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more [demographic] attributes” (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328). A faultline is said to be strong when multiple attributes that might be seen as higher or lower on social stratification hierarchies overlap. For example, a group comprising two White men with high levels of income and two Black women with low levels of income has a strong faultline, while one where the high income subgroup comprises a White woman and a Black man might be weak (since hierarchical differences in demographic characteristics are not aligned; see Flache & Mäs, 2008, for further explanations). In this regard, multiculturalism can contribute to the formation of faultlines, as in the case of Mauritius, reifying claims of separateness and difference that are based on ethnicity and religion through allocation of group rights (Ng Tseung-Wong & Verkuyten, 2015, this issue). The construction of a “fruit salad” (in contrast to a “melting pot”) in Mauritius necessitates that each ethnic group is socially distinct and separate. Strong group identification based on ethnicity and religious affiliation, and the lack of intimate interaction (e.g., interracial marriages) also serve to reinforce these faultlines. This results in challenges related to fairness in political representation and the advancement of equality for different groups, since in-group favoritism inevitably plays a role in the treatment of different groups in decision making and policy making.
Separate and Parallel Lives
A chief criticism of multiculturalism as an ideology is that it promotes separate and parallel lives among ethnic minorities and immigrants. This concern is particularly evident in Europe (e.g., Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands; see Meer et al., 2015, this issue), and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom and Canada (see Winter, 2015, this issue). Ethnic minorities and immigrants are said to retreat to their ethnic enclaves (e.g., Chinatowns or Little India) and are unwilling to interact and integrate with their host country nationals. Diversity and the possibility of parallel lives might also undermine the sense of cohesion among majority residents, some claim, reducing national unity, social capital, or trust in political institutions (see Hooghe & de Vroome, 2015, this issue).
These multicultural concerns are, in a way, two sides of the same coin. The acculturation process (i.e., cultural 4 changes as a result of migration) for immigrants of ethnic minority origin is also dependent on host country attitudes and acceptance. In this regard, Berry et al. (1977) propose a typology along two dimensions—“cultural preservation” among ethnic minorities and “cultural acceptance” of ethnic minorities by the dominant group. In host societies with weak acceptance of the nondominant culture (such as Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands), ethnic minorities with strong cultural preservation 5 —which occurs when the cultural distance is large—experience separation (distancing by the minority group) and marginalization (distancing by the majority group). The latter is a result of a rejection of ethnic minority culture by members of the host society. Separation and marginalization can be hard to distinguish, analytically, as majority distancing might produce reactive separation by minorities, which in turn feeds into notions of difference and parallel lives that push the majority further away. Conversely, when the cultural distance is low, immigrants with weak cultural preservation assimilate into the host society culture with relative ease, such as White immigrants (say from South Africa) to Canada. In host country societies that are much more accepting of the nondominant culture, ethnic minorities with strong cultural preservation, but not outright separation, would experience cultural integration, whereby immigrants and host country nationals adopt and adapt to one another’s culture.
Multiculturalism as a matter of practice and public discourse can consequently take various forms depending on the attitudes and ideology of the host country nationals (and those of their leaders). In this regard, multiculturalism as a public policy may be considered to have failed (e.g., in Germany) when host country societies are less willing to accept the culture of ethnic minority members. Suffice to say, the denial of citizenship to the children of immigrants in Germany (until recently), the denial of dual citizenship in parts of Europe (until recently), and a lack of policy to deal with the long-term implications of guest workers contribute to the rejection of ethnic minorities and immigrants (see Meer et al., 2015, this issue).
Furthermore, there have been concerns that multiculturalism also promotes unhealthy ties between immigrants and their countries of origin, for example, when immigrants bring with them “old world” conflicts to their new countries (cf. Satzewich, 2007; Winter, 2014). Some may return to fight in civil wars or run in elections in their countries of origin even after immigrating. There has also been concerns with foreign remittances by immigrants back to their countries of origin (cf. Barber, 2008), as money sent to the homeland cannot be used for investment, homeownership, or other sorts of capital-intensive integration in the remitting country. Such concerns over transnational ties and attachments have generated public discourse demanding greater citizenship and civic behavior by immigrants (Winter, 2015, this issue).
Obstacle to Equality
Following the criticism of immigrants and ethnic minorities leading separate and parallel lives, multiculturalism is also said to erect barriers to equality (see Meer et al., 2015, this issue). In Western societies, respect for human rights and equal treatment of all are cherished and protected. Acts of “honor killings” and women wearing hijabs and niqabs are seen as violence against women and an indication of gender inequality in ethnic minority cultures (see Ercan, 2015, this issue). The maintenance of cultural practices by minority groups, particularly Muslims, is often associated with multiculturalism and considered to be a violation of values that are sacrosanct in liberal, Western democracies. In that sense, host societies in Denmark, Germany, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands reject multiculturalism as an ideology and instead prefer the assimilation of host country values by ethnic minorities and immigrants. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise for countries such as Denmark and Germany to be slow in embracing immigrants and their status as immigrant receiving nations (Meer et al., 2015, this issue).
Opportunities
Attraction of Talents
Many advanced, developed economies are experiencing an aging workforce, low birth rates, and consequently a shortage of workers (Burke & Ng, 2006). As a result, countries such as Canada, Germany, and South Korea (see Kim, 2015, this issue; Winter, 2014) have turned to immigration and temporary or guest worker programs to plug the shortage of skills. According to Ng and Metz (2014), countries that espouse a multiculturalism policy may stand out and appeal to prospective immigrants for two reasons. First, multiculturalism as an ideology does not require immigrants to assimilate to the host country or dominant group culture. As a result, immigrants can feel free to retain their linguistic and cultural heritage. Indeed, the Canadian government touts that immigrants may more freely take up Canadian citizenship because there is less pressure to assimilate and credits its multiculturalism policy for the success (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2012). In Canada, almost 80% of immigrants “naturalized” to become Canadian citizens (as compared with 46% of immigrants to the United States; Picot & Hou, 2011; see also Bloemraad, 2006). Acquiring citizenship can help immigrants’ labor market outcomes, civic engagement, and political participation (Bevelander & Pendakur, 2007; Bloemraad, 2006; Sumption & Flamm, 2012; Tucker & Santiago, 2013).
Second, Ng and Metz (2014) suggests that countries that have been able to foster a climate of tolerance and inclusion, such as Australia and Canada (both top scoring countries on the Multiculturalism Policy Index, 2010), have been able to attract skilled labor, foreign capital (direct investments), and a large number of international students. This is consistent with Florida’s (2002) hypothesis that the more tolerant a place is to new people, the more talent and skills it will attract. In fact, in a recent survey conducted by Gallup Poll (2010) involving residents from 148 countries, Canada was selected as the number one country of choice among prospective immigrants with a college degree, although the United States remains as the country of choice among prospective immigrants without a college degree. Chua (2009) coined the term strategic tolerance to denote setting aside group differences to take advantage of diverse talents and observes that through the course of history, nations that are able to attract and utilize the best and the brightest talents without regard to ethnic or religion will rise to power.
Source of National Competitive Advantage
Following the attraction argument, Ng and Metz (2014) also argue that immigrants can be a source of competitive advantage to immigrant-receiving nations. When a multicultural rather than assimilation policy is in place, immigrants are encouraged to retain their ties to their countries of origin. These ties develop into transnational networks that facilitate trade and entrepreneurship between the immigrants’ country of origin and their country of residence (Tung & Chung, 2010; also see Winter, 2014). Immigrants speak the language and possess the cultural know-how that are critical for doing business in their country of origin. Again, using Canada as an example, export is projected to grow by 10% annually (as opposed to 1.5% in the past), simply by matching exports to countries represented by the immigrants’ countries of origin (McKenna, 2012). Thus, by creating an inclusive climate through multiculturalism and taking advantage of the unique skills and experiences immigrants have to offer, countries can gain a competitive advantage that is valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate (see Richard, 2000, for an example at the organizational level). This is also true for Mauritius, which draws on its multiethnic diverse population for economic success, especially in light of a lack of resources (see Ng Tseung-Wong & Verkuyten, 2015, this issue).
Political Gains
As a matter of public discourse, politicians have successfully used multiculturalism—as something to celebrate or, more frequently, to criticize—to gain political advantages. This is particularly evident in Europe, with candidates opposed to multiculturalism winning elections or, at a minimum, scaring parties of the center with dramatic increases in support (see Hooghe & de Vroome, 2015, this issue; Meer et al., 2015, this issue). Across the Atlantic, politicians in Canada have tended to advance multiculturalism to generate political gains. The Conservative Government in Canada publicly apologized for past anti-immigrant government policies, such as the Chinese head tax, to woo ethnic Chinese voters (Winter, 2014). Likewise, Conservative politicians’ efforts to create a positive (albeit shifting) multiculturalism narrative in Canada contributes to their electoral success. As an immigrant receiving nation, with a relatively high degree of naturalization and immigrant political engagement, politicians in Canada fight over ethnic minority issues and votes, so much so that the sitting Quebec government lost the 2014 provincial election, in part due to plans to adopt a “secular” charter to target public displays of religion, such as the wearing of a headscarf or turban, in line with similar moves in France and other West European countries.
The Canadian case suggests that over the medium term, European politicians might also move to more centrist policies around pluralism as those of immigrant origins become a bigger proportion of the electorate, especially in big cities. Even in Germany, Chancellor Merkel recently appointed the first Turkish-Muslim member of her cabinet, Aydan Özoğuz, perhaps signaling a shift in Germany’s approach to immigration and multiculturalism. As more and more first- and second-generation immigrants in Europe become citizens, a more conciliatory approach might follow. Also, as more ethnocultural minorities are appointed to Cabinet, ministerial posts and other elected or appointed decision-making positions, decision makers of minority background might spur the implementation of policies that are beneficial to minority groups, as per the representative bureaucracy tradition (Kingsley, 1944). The analysis by Hooghe and de Vroome (2015, this issue) is very instructive in this regard, as they show that despite popular sentiment against multicultural public discourse in Europe, analysis of the relationship between actual multiculturalism policy, on the one hand, and specific attitudes toward political institutions, trust, or anti-immigrant sentiment demonstrates no correlation. Put differently, persistence or adoption of specific policies on minority recognition and accommodation does not seem to produce a backlash, and they might even be viewed positively by the more educated public.
Threats
Incompatible With Western, Liberal Values
Claims of immigrants leading separate and parallel lives has led to a conclusion that multiculturalism undermines Western, liberal values (see Ercan, 2015, this issue). As alluded to earlier, respect for human rights, fair treatment, and (gender) equality are considered to be sacrosanct to Western, liberal democracies. Acts deemed to be cultural or religious (e.g., wearing of hijabs and niqabs) cause significant unease in largely secular but historically Christian societies, such as those in Denmark and Germany. The tendency to view cultural preservation among ethnic minorities as rejection of host country values has given rise to hostility toward immigrants. As Meer et al. (2015, this issue) remark, rising concerns over a growing Muslim population also fuels the exaggerated fear of Islamic radicalization and home grown terrorism. Consequently, immigrants who are ethnic minorities are seen to be unable to assimilate (to Danish or German society), give rise to social conflict, and pose a threat to the host society values and culture. In societies that demand an assimilation mode of acculturation, ethnic minorities may experience greater discrimination as a result of alienation and rejection by majority group members. For example, immigrant youths in Canada report lower discrimination and better adjustment than immigrant youths in France, where assimilation into French society is required (Berry & Sabatier, 2010). Thus, the failure to accommodate differences in assimilationist societies has led to the conclusion in some quarters that multiculturalism is fundamentally in conflict with Western values and ideals. This view is ironic in the face of how Korean elites link multiculturalism with modernism.
Burden to State Welfare
Assimilationist societies such as Denmark and Germany report poorer immigrant acculturation and integration as compared with other immigrant-embracing countries. Given prevailing attitudes, it is no surprise that these societies feel immigrants should take on a greater responsibility to assimilate and perceive immigrants to be a burden to the state. This has prompted politicians to call for a reduction in state welfare benefits and more restrictive immigration selection policies (see Meer et al., 2015, this issue), and concurrently declare multiculturalism to be a failed policy. The link between multiculturalism (or assimilationism) and immigrant dependency on social benefits is difficult to tease out, given the many other factors that affect labor market incorporation and welfare use. Thus, although countries such as Canada and Australia have much more open citizenship and expansive multiculturalism policies (Multiculturalism Policy Index, 2010), they also place a stronger emphasis on economic qualifications (e.g., knowledge, skills, and abilities) in the selection of immigrants. For example, recent OECD calculations estimate that 47% of the foreign-born living in Canada from 2005 to 2006 were highly educated (as were 34% in Australia), compared with only 28% in Denmark (and 16% in Germany; Widmaier & Dumont, 2011).
Threat to Nationalism and National Identity
Despite more positive attitudes and outcomes of multiculturalism in Canada, it does not have support from all Canadians. Opponents of multiculturalism see it as a tool for managing dominant (Anglo) and minority relations. In this regard, French-speaking and Aboriginal Canadians see themselves as different and separate from ethnic minorities, and multiculturalism as an ideology is perceived as a threat to their own identities and aspirations for self-determination (see Winter, 2011). French Canadians (i.e., Quebecers), in particular, see (Anglophone) multiculturalism and cultural plurality to be a threat to their aspirations for self-governance and nation-building, preferring an alternative “intercultural” model (Bouchard & Taylor, 2008). Indeed, 95% of Quebec’s non-French-speaking voters (a majority of whom are ethnic minorities) voted against separation in the 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum (see Winter, 2015, this issue). Likewise, in countries with relatively low levels of ethnic minorities, such as Denmark, immigration is portrayed as a threat to national identity, and by extension, its language, culture, and values (Meer et al., 2015, this issue).
Summary and Conclusion
Table 1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses associated with multiculturalism, as well as the opportunities and threats presented by multiculturalism to nations and societies. Strengths and weaknesses are derived from multiculturalism as it is currently practiced or implemented in the countries our contributors studied. Opportunities and threats represent the potential benefits and risks that may be derived from multiculturalism, and thus needs to be managed, as discussed in the articles of this volume.
SWOT Analysis of Multiculturalism From Around the World.
In general, countries that embrace multiculturalism report more positive outcomes in the form of better incorporation of ethnic minorities into society and greater tolerance among ethnocultural groups or, at a minimum, no negative relationship between adopting multicultural policies and various integration outcomes, among immigrants or the native-born (see Bloemraad & Wright, 2014; Hooghe & de Vroome, 2015, this issue). Conversely, societies that demand an assimilation mode of acculturation report poorer ethnic minority and immigrant integration and experience backlash against multiculturalism from its citizens. To that end, politicians in assimilationist societies are quick to denounce multiculturalism and declare its failure. In reality, the failure might flow from a mismatch between multiculturalism as an ideology and as a public policy. For a multiculturalism policy to be effective, assimilationist societies must be prepared to change elite and public attitudes and exercise greater tolerance toward those who are different from the culture of the dominant group. This may take the form of exercising “strategic tolerance” as in the case of South Korea, or adopting and adapting to each other’s culture, as in the case of Mauritius. Furthermore, countries with weak or no multiculturalism policies, such as Denmark and Germany, often have to compensate with either strong antidiscrimination or strong assimilation programs in order to remove barriers to participation or to incorporate ethnic minorities and immigrants into host societies. Moreover, the same countries that espouse an assimilationist approach to immigrants also have strong ethnocentric policies such as denial of citizenship to children of immigrants or proscriptions on dual citizenship. Such policies are arguably incompatible with globalization and a goal of increasing the talent flow to countries facing population declines since global citizenship and immigration (having two or more passports) are touted for fostering international business and trade (Tung, 2008).
We offer a few suggestions for future research to extend our knowledge and understanding of the role of multiculturalism within the context of increasing globalization and international migration. Based on our review of the articles in this special issue, it is evident that multiculturalism, when implemented well, promotes ethnic minority and immigration integration in host societies. It can also be implemented in ways that do not inevitably produce “backlash” among the native-born majority population. However, multiculturalism is subject to critiques for arguably promoting parallel lives and excessive ties with the immigrants’ countries of origin. It is possible, however, that ethnic diasporas and transnational immigrant networks can be conceived in a more positive way, when situated with a global economy; they might aid in facilitating trade and producing economic benefits for immigrant receiving countries. We suggest future research examine the cost and benefits that are derived from multiculturalism using this more global lens.
Claims of failed multiculturalism are also frequently attributed to how acts of cultural maintenance undermine ethnic minorities’ or immigrants’ ability to gain socioeconomic mobility. However, the context and environment in which multiculturalism is implemented has rarely been considered. The interaction between multiculturalism policy and other institutions or structures that affect socioeconomic outcomes needs to be better studied. This could focus on the intersection of multiculturalism and welfare state arrangement, or multiculturalism in different sorts of educational systems, investigating how multicultural curricula interact with the use of exams to allocate students to different schools or academic tracks.
Third, social contacts with dissimilar others have been shown to increase the acceptance of dissimilar others (Frølund Thomsen, 2012). However, Putnam (2007) also finds that increasing diversity can result in decreased trust among racial groups in the United States. To the extent that this is also true elsewhere, it may be worth investigating the levels of diversity in which social contact may be helpful to promote greater tolerance and acceptance of ethnocultural groups and immigrants, and the conditions under which social contact becomes negative for intergroup relations. One recent meta-analysis finds little evidence that diversity, per se, undermines social capital and trust, but if negative effects exist, they might occur most at the neighborhood level (van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014). This points to the importance of studying actual interpersonal interactions on streets, in workplaces, schools, and businesses, as well as examining how local diversity policies might promote or impede intergroup relations.
In closing, we wish to thank Regine Bendl for her assistance early in the process of putting together this special journal issue, and we thank the following reviewers who generously shared their time and expertise in contributing to the peer-review process for this special issue; we also thank a number of additional reviewers who preferred to remain anonymous.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article is supported in part by the F.C. Manning Chair in Economics and Business at Dalhousie University and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, in Toronto, Canada.