Multiculturalism, Interculturalism, and Cultural Diversity

During the recent decades, Europe has become more and more diverse due to the increasing inner pluralism in the European societies based on global cultural flows, new means of communication and media contents, market economy, immigration, and EU enlargement and mobility policies. In today´s societies – which have even been described as superdiverse (Vertovec 2007; Blommaert &

Rampton 2011) – pluralism is not only broad but multidimensional and fluid. In a ‘complex diversity’ (Krauss 2011) characteristics of cultural, ethic, or national categories become more difficult to perceive. Fluid social ties, statuses, positions, and competences of people complicate the categories and structures of the diversity. During the past decades, European societies have aimed to govern their increasing diversity through national diversity policies, which have different emphases in different societies – and can therefore be described as ranging from multiculturalism to integration and from transnationalism to assimilation (Lähdesmäki & Wagener, forthcoming).

In recent years, Europe has faced a backlash against multiculturalism (Bauböck 2008, 7; Modood & Meer 2012, 190). Nationalist movements and their spokesmen have criticized the increasing diversity in Europe, finding fault particularly with the current immigration policies and the subsequent development of multicultural societies (Vertovec & Wessendorf 2009). Some

40

core European political leaders have joined the critics by condemning the multiculturalist polices as failed.

The European political organizations, such as the EU and the Council of Europe, have aimed to react to the diversification of the European societies and the entailing societal changes and challenges. Indeed, for a couple of years diversity has been one of the key words in the European policy rhetoric. Besides a popular key word or slogan, it has become an important domain of governance. The political and societal debates over multiculturalism have influenced the EU´s and the Council of Europe’s current diversity politics and rhetoric. In fact, they seem to have been in a shift in Europe during the recent years. Several recent EU and Council of Europe´s policy documents participate in and speed up the shift in the diversity politics by emphasizing the

‘intercultural dialogue’ instead of multiculturalism as the core focus of the policy rhetoric. The EU has promoted the idea of intercultural dialogue e.g., in the European Commission´s European agenda for culture in a globalizing world (2007). Even though the intercultural dialogue is considered in the Agenda “as one of the main instruments of peace and conflict prevention” (EC 2007, 7), it is often approached and discussed in the EU initiatives and policy documents in cultural terms, and its implementation is often narrowed to activities in the field of art and culture. The idea of the need for increasing intercultural dialogue and intercultural competence in the EU member states recurs in several recent cultural and citizenship programs of the union.

Diversity as a cultural and societal condition can be distinguished from the policies of governing diversity (Bauböck 2008, 2). Thus, the reality of multicultural, transcultural, or intercultural practices, communities and cultural phenomena in contemporary European societies does not automatically indicate the implementation of multiculturalism or interculturalism as a political ideology in the administration and governance of diversity. Most of the European societies implement some kind of diversity policies regarding their minorities and immigrants. However, the policies differ greatly between societies. ERICarts report for the European Commission (Wiesand et al. 2008, iv) has indicated that the principles of human, civic, economic, and social rights embedded in the EU directives and agendas have not been implemented in a uniform manner in national legislation or policies on diversity. Moreover, the report concludes that the emergence of “one single model encompassing all national approaches to intercultural dialogue cannot realistically be expected, at present” (Wiesand et al. 2008, v). The conclusion reflects the fact that the diversity in Europe is truly diverse. Differing historical, political and social conditions have produced distinct ‘diversity structures’ (Saukkonen 2007, 41–54) into European societies.

What kind of theoretical assumptions are the different diversity policies built on? In general, the normative justification of different diversity policies is often outlined in terms of the classical traditions of political theory, such as liberalism,

41 republicanism, and social democracy (Koenig & de Guchteneire 2007, 5). Over the past decades scholars have also analyzed the governance of diversity in other terms. The basic focuses in these investigations have been in the politics of recognition (e.g., Taylor 1994; Tully 1995) and the politics of citizenship in multicultural conditions (e.g., Kymlicka 1995). According to the basic categorization presented by Charles Taylor (1994, 37–38), the politics of recognition may be approached from two opposing points of view: ‘The politics of universalism’ emphasize that all citizens within a society should have equal rights and entitlements, while ‘the politics of difference’ stress the recognition of distinctness and particularity of each culture and individual identity. Even though the aim of both politics is to increase equality, their contradicting views lead to conflicting interpretations on equal rights and the recognition of difference. The multicultural reality complicates the dynamics of the politics of recognition in many contemporary societies. Will Kymlicka (1995) has emphasized in his investigations how minority rights fit together with the liberal political theory and its interests in individual rights. In his views the

‘internal restrictions’ and ‘external protection’ function as two counterbalances in the politics of diversity. The external protection enables cultural groups to foster their cultural identity without the interference of outer influences or attempts of assimilation, while the internal restrictions prevent the groups from exercising cultural practices which are against the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the liberal society (Kymlicka 1995).

The foundation of multiculturalism as a political idea and a policy has often been explained with theoretical dichotomies. Scholars have for example distinguished between assimilation and acculturation (Barry 2001); moderate and radical (Miller 2000); weak and strong (Grillo 2005); thin and thick (Tamir 1995); and liberal and communitarian politics of multiculturalism (Taylor 1994).

Some scholars have categorized the politics of multiculturalism with more detailed strands in relation to political theory. For example, in addition to a multiculturalism of recognition, Rainer Bauböck (2008, 3–7) has distinguished between a multiculturalism of celebration and a multiculturalism of toleration in order to structure the variety of approaches found in the contemporary politics of multiculturalism. According to him, in multiculturalism of celebration cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity is considered as a public good in a society and as a resource in a globalizing world. Multiculturalism of toleration sees a potential conflict in an increasing cultural diversity, and it is therefore considered important to decrease the risk of a conflict. (Bauböck 2008.)

The concept of multiculturalism has been a topic of many recent critical discussions and analyses in the academia. It has been criticized e.g., for emphasizing boundaries instead of their blurring, and for focusing mainly on ethnic and national issues instead of paying attention to the multisectional diversity in societies. The critics have rather discussed the contemporary diversity and its governance with the term of interculturalism. However, several

42

scholars have recently emphasized that the concepts and policy rhetoric of interculturalism and multiculturalism are discursively fluid and that it is difficult to draw any clear or stable line of demarcation between the two (Levey 2012; Wieviorka 2012). As Taqir Modood and Naser Meer (2012) have pointed out, the qualities, such as encouraging communication, recognition of dynamic identities, promotion of unity, and critique for illiberal cultural practice that are often used to promote political interculturalism, are equally important (and on occasion foundational) features of multiculturalism. Due to the fluid and vague contents of the concepts, the discussions on supplanting multiculturalism by interculturalism have included politicized dimensions (Levey 2012).

Politics is made in language and through discourses. Due to the discursive nature of politics, political innovations are always conceptual and conceptual changes embody politics (e.g., Farr 1989, 31). Political language in the administrative documents does not only describe the reality of the policies, but it participates in their production. Thus, political language is a performative speech act (Austin 1982), even though its explicit claims might not be fulfilled (Mäkinen 2012, 78). The concepts of interculturalism and intercultural dialogue are both political innovations and conceptual changes in diversity policies.

The multilevel pluralism and diversity in contemporary societies is manifested in cultural practices and phenomena. Similarly the diversity policies have an impact on cultural manifestations. The concept of cultural diversity is used in this study to describe the variety and heterogeneity of culture under contemporary conditions. It is understood both as a condition of culture and a cultural discourse which includes a variety of strategies for dealing with the cultural diversity and socio-cultural heterogeneity of societies. The concept of cultural diversity is perceived in the study from a discursive point of view.

Understanding the concept and the discussions on cultural diversity in a discursive sense opens views on the meaning-making processes and uses of the idea of cultural interaction or cultural dialogue in the context of the ECOC initiative.