Defendiendo la diversidad en una época de populismos: Will Kymlicka

Defending Diversity in an Era of Populism: Multiculturalism and Interculturalism Compared

Will Kymlicka

Forthcoming in Nasar Meer, Tariq Modood and Ricard Zapata-Barrero (eds) International Perspectives on Interculturalism and Multiculturalism: Bridging European and North American Divides
(Edinburgh University Press), forthcoming.

Introduction

In both academic and public debates, one of the current fashions is to defend a (new, innovative, realistic) interculturalism against a (tired, discredited, naive) multiculturalism. In an influential recent article, Meer and Modood argue that there is little intellectual substance underlying this trend.  The two approaches are often said to rest on different underlying assumptions about the nature of individual and collective identities, the sources of social cohesion, the practices of democratic citizenship and the norms of justice. In reality, however, these contrasts typically rest on a misrepresentation, even caricature, of multiculturalist theories and approaches. Nor is the trend based on a systematic empirical comparison of the actual policy outcomes associated with the two approaches, since defenders of interculturalism rarely make clear how their policy recommendations differ from those defended by multiculturalists. As a result, Meer and Modood argue, the “good interculturalism vs bad multiculturalism” literature is essentially rhetorical rather than analytical.

Meer and Modood’s conclusions have not gone unchallenged, and various commentators continue to insist that (some versions of) interculturalism really do represent an important intellectual alternative to (some versions of) multiculturalism.  While I remain convinced of Meer and Modood’s conclusions, in this paper, I want to set aside that debate, and approach the issue from a different perspective. There may or may not be compelling intellectual or academic reasons to distinguish interculturalist from multiculturalist approaches, but it seems clear to me that drawing a sharp contrast between them can also serve certain political purposes. In the current political climate, the trope of replacing a tired old multiculturalism with a new innovative interculturalism can serve certain rhetorical functions, and we need to be aware of this.

My goal in this paper, therefore, is to consider the interculturalism/multiculturalism contrast as a form of political rhetoric, and to ask what is the purpose of this rhetoric? Who are the proponents of this rhetoric, and who are the intended audiences? Which political actors, and which political projects, are being enabled by this new rhetoric, and who/what is being marginalized? In places, Meer and Modood imply that if the contrast between interculturalism and multiculturalism is primarily rhetorical rather than substantive or analytical, it is therefore of less interest, and perhaps even a distraction. I want to suggest, on the contrary, that the politics of rhetoric in this field is itself very interesting and revealing.

Link
https://www.academia.edu/11038453
/Defending_Diversity_in_an_Era_of_Populism_Multiculturalism_and_Interculturalism_Compared_2015_
.........
  This paper is a revised and expanded version of my “Comment on Meer and Modood”, Journal of Interculturalism Studies, Vol. 33 (2012): 211-216.
  See Meer and Modood 2012, reprinted in this volume.
  See, for example, the responses in Journal of Intercultural Studies (Vol. 33, 2012), and the essays collected in Barrett 2013.