Journal of Sociology

This article considers Australian attitudes to immigration and cultural diversity. It argues that Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations. The average of 25 surveys conducted in Australia in the period 1999–2010 finds 52% in support of the current immigration level or in support of an increased intake, 43% in support of reduction, and 5% uncertain. While there can be no definitive measure of the level of strong opposition to cultural diversity, on the basis of a number of surveys conducted over the last 30 years, there are indications that the level is close to 10% of the population, with higher levels within specific demographics. Areas of high immigrant concentration present a complex picture. They are characterised by high levels of identification with Australia, but also lower levels of trust and sense of safety, lower levels of participation and heightened experience of discrimination.

Australian multiculturalism – an integrative policy strategy aiming at managing cultural diversity – was adopted as government policy in Australia in the 1970s. In its original rendition, Australian multiculturalism was embedded in classical sociological theory, integrative, reciprocal, egalitarian and respectful of the majority. However, it has also been confused with ethnic pluralism and assimilationist ‘melting pot’ approaches, and these confusions are apparent in the recent European and domestic criticisms. The article outlines the principles of Australian multiculturalism, identifies its theoretical foundations, and highlights some of the popular confusions about its meaning, focus and objectives.

Europe forms an interesting laboratory for studying political reactions to mass immigration and integration of ethnic minorities during times of political turbulence and economic crisis. Political leaders of mainstream parties, under pressure from critics of intensified immigration and now from the social effects of the Great Recession, act reactively and defensively. They respond to a political backlash against immigration and to concerns about unemployment and job security by criticizing (mainly illegal) immigrants for welfare parasitism, reluctance to integrate and even criminality. Such criticism generates a climate of suspicion and hostility towards immigrants and legitimizes policies that restrict immigration and immigrant rights. The leaders also describe ‘multiculturalism’ – portrayed as uncritical acceptance of cultural diversity – as a failure, and suggest more ‘realistic’ (read: less tolerant, more assimilationist) policy strategies.

In recent years, multiculturalism has been declared a failure both in Europe and the Anglophone West. This diagnosis went hand in hand with an excessive focus on gendered cultural practices in culturally diverse societies, such as forced marriages or ‘honour killings’; the raise of anti-immigration political movements and the adoption of stricter legal rules in the areas of immigration and citizenship. This article aims to capture the legal, social and political responses to ‘failed’ multiculturalism under the banner of post-multiculturalism. In doing so, it identifies the major shifts that characterises post-multiculturalism and discusses their implications particularly for the citizens of Europe and various ‘others’. A close analysis of the recent shifts in the areas of rights, migration law and policy debates in various culturally diverse societies reveal that post-multiculturalism reinforces rather than counteracts the problematic features of multiculturalism. Drawing on the insights suggested by the literature on neo-liberal governmentality, the article points out the paradoxes of post-multiculturalism and their implications for culturally different Others.

In this article we review migration policies that have evolved in the eastern neighbourhood of the European Union, that is, in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. We ask how they compare with those that have been adopted by European Union member states and migrant settler countries such as Australia. We also use this regional perspective to comment on the application of the systems methodology in migration studies.