Edinburgh Research Explorer
Examining 'postmulticultural' and civic turns in the Netherlands,
Britain, Germany, and Denmark
Citation for published version:
Meer, N, Mouritsen, P, Faas, D & de Witte, N 2015, 'Examining 'postmulticultural' and civic turns in the
Netherlands, Britain, Germany, and Denmark', American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 702-726.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214566496
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):
10.1177/0002764214566496
Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer
Document Version:
Peer reviewed version
Published In:
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher Rights Statement:
The final version of this paper has been published in American Behavioral Scientist, 59/6, May/2015 by SAGE
Publications Ltd, All rights reserved. © Nasar Meer, Per Mouritsen, Daniel Faas and Nynke de Witte, 2015. It is
available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764214566496
General rights
Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.
Download date: 21. Jan. 2022
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Retracing the ‘retreat’?
Exploring post-multicultural and civic turns in the Netherlands, Britain,
Germany and Denmark
Nasar Meer1, Per Mouritsen2, Daniel Faas3 and Nynke de Witte4
Abstract
There is a widely shared view that the appeal of multiculturalism as a public policy has suffered
considerable political damage. In many European states the turn to ‘civic’ measures and discourses has
been deemed more suitable for the objectives of minority integration and the promotion of preferred
modes of social and political unity. It is therefore said that the first decade of the new century has been
characterised by a reorientation in immigrant integration policies - from liberal culturalist to the ‘return of
assimilation’ (Brubaker, 2001), on route to a broader ‘retreat from multiculturalism’ (Joppke, 2004). In
this article we argue that such portrayals mask a tendency that is more complicated in some cases and
much less evident in others. To elaborate this we offer a detailed account of the inception and then alleged
movement away from positions in favour multiculturalism in two countries that have adopted different
versions of it, namely the UK and the Netherlands, and two countries that have historically rejected
multiculturalism, namely Denmark and Germany. We argue that while there is undoubtedly a rhetorical
separation between multiculturalism and civic integration, the latter is in some cases building on the
former, and broadly needs to be understood as more than a retreat of multiculturalism. Taking seriously
Banting and Kymlicka’s argument that understanding the evolution of integration requires the ‘the mindset of an archaeologist’, we offer a policy genealogy that allows us to set the backlash against
multiculturalism in context, in manner that explicates its provenance, permutations and implications.
Keywords: Multiculturalism, Civic Integration, Citizenship, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands
1
University of Strathclyde, UK
University of Aarhus, Denmark
3
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
4
The Hague, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author: Nasar Meer, University of Strathclyde, Lord Hope Building, Glasgow, G1 0LT,
nasar.meer@strath.ac.uk
2
1
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Introduction
This article explores the status of multiculturalism in contemporary Europe. Focusing on four
European Union countries we investigate the ways in which their diverging responses to multiculturalism
have informed a renaissance in thinking about how best to reconcile political unity with ethnic and
religious difference. One means through which this has proceeded has been cultivation and entrenchment
of civic integrationist approaches, what Goodman (2010: 754) describes as a set of ‘“civic hardware”,
including integration contracts, classes, tests and ceremonies’. We are especially interested in the extent
to which this civic hardware is deemed to redress multiculturalism’s alleged shortcomings, not least
because a number of authors have stressed a relationship between a ‘civic turn’ (Mouritsen, 2008) and a
‘retreat’ from multiculturalism (Back et al., 2002; Hansen, 2007; Joppke, 2004; 2009; Levrau and
Loobuyck, 2013). For example, Joppke (2004: 253), amongst others, has insisted that civic integrationist
approaches are ‘most visible in Britain and The Netherlands, the two societies in Europe...that had so far
been most committed to official multiculturalism’. One cautionary response to this reading is that
Joppke’s interpretation assumes a dichotomy between ‘civic integration’ and ‘multiculturalism’, or at
least ‘places the two in a zero-sum equation that ignores the extent to which they could just as plausibly
be synthesized in a potential outgrowth of one another’ (Meer and Modood, 2009: 475).5
It is important to stress however that while we pay particular note to the elevation and promotion of civic
integrationist measures (Mouritsen, 2008, 2009, 2011), we approach these by situating them in a
politicisation of public policies on integration and citizenship. Thus we are not here offering a systematic
comparison of civic integration measures, for this would repeat a collection of work that can be found
elsewhere (e.g., Koopmans et al, 2012; Goodman, 2010; Baubock and Joppke, 2010; Baubock et al., 2006
Goodman (2010: 757) puts this differently but makes a similar point in her observation that, ‘A state can widen or
liberalise the scope of people who are eligible to apply for citizenship while raising the expectations for new
citizens. In other words, increasing the obligations of citizenship does not necessarily cancel out historically
established or recently won membership rights.’
5
2
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
and Weil, 2001)6.
We instead want to provide a contextually sensitive account of the fate of
multiculturalism by returning to recent policy developments, where we can observe a cluster of seemingly
novel tendencies, and yet which illustrate how the salience of recent civic integrationism only really
makes sense in relation to debates about multiculturalism. We use the term novel to register a shift onto
the identity of membership itself (Joppke, 2008), in a manner that has sought to give particular content to
that membership in both vertical individual-state relations, as well as horizontally across civil society and
social groups (Modood and Meer, 2011). According to Kostakopoulou (2010: 830) this is present across
Europe in ‘policies for ‘social cohesion’, ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’, including the official promotion
of national identity, official lists of national values, language [and clothing] prohibitions in public
transport, schools, universities and hospitals, compulsory language courses and tests for migrants,
naturalisation ceremonies and oaths of loyalty’. Several elements of this description are recognisable in
both Britain and the Netherlands; two of our chosen countries which - though differing from one another
in their approaches to the integration of ethnic minorities - have previously rejected the coerciveassimilationist or ius sanguinis-exclusive approaches of other continental examples. Yet here too the
instrumentalisation of citizenship for minority integration – which ‘emphasises the symbolic value of
citizenship as an identity status’ (Bauböck, 2010: 852) – has increasingly been pursued as a short term
panacea (and longer term prophylactic) to the sorts of societal disunity allegedly associated with ethnic
minority separatism in general, and Muslim alienation, estrangement and (ultimately) violent extremism
in particular.
No less striking – perhaps even perplexing – is that countries which have historically either actively
rejected or benignly ignored multiculturalist public policies, and so have never adopted them, such as
Germany and Denmark, claim that such policies have failed in their countries too. For example the
6
Though of course how such measurement should best proceed continues to be debated (cf Goodman, 2012).
3
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared in October 2010 that ‘multiculturalism has failed, completely
failed’ in Germany, while Søren Pind (2008), the former Danish Minister of Integration insisted on the
need to re-assert that ‘the right word must be assimilation. There are so many cultures and people can go
elsewhere and engage with them if this is what they want’.
Four Cases or Two Pairs?
These four cases, the Netherlands, UK, Germany and Denmark, are presented as two pairs that
will facilitate a distinct inquiry because each pair has either incorporated or rejected multiculturalist
policies, but has done so in different ways that cannot be understood without grasping something of their
national policy trajectory. For example, Banting and Kymlicka’s (2013: 7-8) Multiculturalism Policy
Index, which monitors multicultural public policies across twenty one Western democracies across three
intervals (1980, 2000 and 2010), tells us that in 2000 the Netherlands and Britain scored 5.5 and 5.5 out
of a possible 8 respectively, and Denmark and Germany scored 0.5 and 2 respectively. By 2010 the score
for the Netherlands had been reduced to 2, Britain remained the same, Denmark was at 0 and Germany
had increased to 2.5. This offers a mixed picture of the fate of multiculturalism that is given qualitative
support in Vertovec and Wessendorf’s (2010) reading that while the term multiculturalism has
‘disappeared from the political rhetoric’ (ibid. 18), this is something that is not paralleled by the
‘eradication, nor much to the detriment, of actual measures, institutions, and frameworks of minority
cultural recognition’ (ibid. 21).
While the criteria Banting and Kymlicka use goes ‘beyond anti-
discrimination to offer some degree of positive recognition, accommodation and support of minorities’
(2013: 7-8), taken on its own the index risks overlooking the richer contextual explanation that can be
garnered from an excavation of recent historical policy developments. These are especially relevant to the
why questions. Amongst them, why have states with different migration and integration policy
experiences adopted civic integration policies?
4
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
To our minds, however, this question rests on a prior investigation of what is expressed in the debates that
these four countries with such different experiences have come to have over multiculturalism. These are
necessarily empirical as well as theoretical questions that relate to timing and context in the process of
policy change to which we turn next. Our broader point is not to deny either the structural reasons for the
development of post multicultural agendas, nor that changes do not also reflect power political and
discursive shifts. An objective instead is to show how arguments regarding multiculturalism’s retreat in
Europe do not do justice to the complexity of the processes that led up to the adoption of civic
integrationist policies in the Netherlands, Britain, Germany and Denmark, something that obscures the
ways in which multiculturalism can be seen to ‘wear different faces’ (Alexander, 2013: 2). Drawing on
data compiled in the cross-national CiViTURN project (2009-2013) we rely on policy documents,
governmental statements and public discourse that formed part of a five work-package analyses. The
materials were selected and coded by each national partner and a conventional inductive analysis was
undertaken before the data were brought together qualitatively and synthesised by the research team. It is
therefore worth re-stating that we are not undertaking a systematic review type comparison on civic
integration measures (as we indicate above), but instead seek to grasp the nature and process of change,
in no less rigourous fashion, but focusing on the motivations and form of policy change broadly
conceived, and it is to this that we next turn.
Modeling Policy Change
It is widely accepted that attempting to understand policy change can be a dense and at times
elaborate activity (Smith and Kattikireddi, 2013), and to the extent that there is a prevailing account of
what the study of policy change should incorporate, it could be argued that this seeks to explore a series
of distinct but interrelated stages (Hogwood and Gunn, 1985). The precise configuration and description
5
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
of stages reflects the wider theoretical stance that is adopted, but these stages can typically comprise:
problem identification; agenda-setting; consideration of potential actions; implementation of agreed
action; and evaluation (cf Dolowitz and Marsh, 1996).
In their account, Banting and Kymlicka (2013) point to two expressions of institutionalist thought. The
first is inspired by biological models of evolutionary development, especially Baumgartner and Jones’
(1993) notion of ‘punctuated equilibriums’ which posits that systems can quickly shift from one period of
relative stability to another. They argue these ‘punctuations’ occur when persuasive ideas gain increasing
attention, a situation which depends on external (political) factors as well the inherent qualities of an idea.
As Banting and Kymlicka (2013: 4) note, ‘many interpretations of the shift from multiculturalism to civic
integration have this flavour’. The second expression they characterize as incremental adaptation which
implies that ‘change takes place, even in the context of stability in formal programs, through processes of
drift, conversion and layering’ (Banting and Kymlicka, 2013: 4). This latter point is especially important
for both Banting and Kymlicka as well as to us, for it maintains that our understanding of changes needs
to ‘assume that each new generation does not start with a black slate. Understanding the evolution of
immigrant integration, according to this perspective, requires the mindset of an archeologist’ (ibid.).
We take seriously the observation of incremental adaptation by seeking seek to offer a policy genealogy
in order to assess the implications and understand the permutations of the backlash against
multiculturalism. To probe this we will focus upon four illustrative cases comprising two national
contexts where different modes of multiculturalism have been embraced (The Netherlands and Britain),
and two national contexts where it has never been adopted (Denmark and Germany). Our argument is
that the underlying dynamics already evident in these cases are essential in delineating the ‘postmulticultural’ turn in Europe for the following reasons. Whereas current accounts employ the narrative of
6
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
a relatively seamless movement in the pendulum, that has directed the momentum from being in favour to
being against multicultural policies (e.g., Joppke, 2004; Cantle, 2012), the momentum behind this
pendulum must necessarily have been staggered in that each national context has a different starting point
in this journey, leading to a more complicated and mixed outcome (Jacobs and Rea, 2007). Hence, while
each of these four countries currently experience a civic integrationist turn, the logic of the manner in
which this turn is a reaction to a perceived crisis of multiculturalism – the meaning of the ‘post’ in ‘postmulticultural’ as it were – is quite different, at the level of discourse as well as policy change. In the next
section the article will offer a detailed account of the inception and then movement away from positions
in favour of multiculturalism in two countries that have adopted different versions of it, namely the UK
and the Netherlands, and the emergence of strong civic cultural criticisms of ‘the crisis of
multiculturalism’ in two countries that never had much multiculturalism in the first place, but were also
late in perceiving the need to integrate its newcomers at all, namely Denmark and Germany.
The Netherlands and Britain - a backlash in multicultural states?
Given the often assumed similarity of Dutch and British post-colonial multiculturalism, the
challenge to (and sometimes reversal) of previous minority accommodation policies in the Netherlands
has struck observers as both remarkable and indicative of the shape of things to come elsewhere
(Sniderman and Hagendoorn, 2007). Yet we need to grasp how in both cases different starting points
herald implications for the ‘maturity’ of different reactions. By this we refer to the longevity or the extent
to which multicultural policies have been embedded and sedimented in political cultures and public
policies in our cases, including in more discursive notions of belonging, which may either mitigate or
accelerate the ease with which multiculturalism, may be dislodged.
This is related to our further
argument which concerns the assumption of an alleged homogeneity in the provenance of these
7
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
developments, principally attributing them to millennial anxieties over ethnic minority separatism in
general, and Muslim alienation, estrangement (and ultimately violent radicalism) in particular.
Drilling down into the Dutch and British cases first and the German and Danish cases next, shows that
this provenance is in fact quite mixed. Not only were some countries more multiculturalist to begin with,
and others hardly at all, none were cut from the same cloth. Hence the Netherlands was never an archtypical multicultural country (Kymlicka, 2008), and its internal critique of multiculturalism occurred
relatively early, and indeed not long after it had been embraced. Dutch multiculturalism began as a
peculiar mixture of welfare statist laissez-faire (with relatively generous group provisions), gastarbeiter
returnism, and continuation of the country’s legacy of ideological-religious institutional segregation, socalled
pillarisation. This tradition extended well into the 1950s and 1960s, when many facets of
everyday social life in the Netherlands were organised according to very distinct Protestant, Catholic,
Socialist and Liberal constituencies – albeit with an over-arching ethno-national and political Dutch
national identity. With the post-war movement of 300,000 migrants from former colonies (especially
Dutch-Indonesians and Moluccans), as well as the arrival during the 1950s and 1960s of guest workers
from Southern Europe, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Morocco, the social structure of pillars for existing
minorities was simply extended to incorporate ethnic minorities (and a new religion) as well.
The extension of this mode of social organisation to migrants was at first anticipated to facilitate their
return home,7 with the key premise that policies aimed at permanent integration could hamper such
returning. It was only later that the retention of cultural identity was seen – by segments of the political
left in particular – as a vehicle for emancipation and integration in Dutch society, and that cultural
diversity was considered a means of enriching society. Yet unlike Britain or Canada, few attempts were
7
This applies less to those who came from the Dutch East Indies between 1949 and 1961, and who were expected to
stay and adapt to the Dutch culture.
8
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
made, at least at the national level, to either change the majority society’s institutions, to incorporate this
new religious-cultural difference in Dutch national identity and official public culture (cf Duyvendak &
Scholten, 2012).
The first official immigrant integration policy in the Netherlands was not therefore developed until the
early 1980s, with a draft Minorities Memorandum in 1981 and the final Minorities Memorandum in 1983.
The new policy was based on the assumption that ethnic minorities would remain in the Netherlands.
Previously temporary ‘guest-workers’ or colonial migrants, they now were recognized as permanent
‘cultural’ or ‘ethnic minorities’ within Dutch society. Policy discourse thus stressed the social-cultural
emancipation of minorities, political participation, combating discrimination, and enhancing the socialeconomic participation of members of minorities. However, the conceptualisation of cultural integration
as retaining something of earlier identities, which has been called multiculturalism avant la lettre
(Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2006: 16) was subject to criticism from the late 1980s, when a report by the
influential Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989) concluded that insufficient progress had been
made in areas such as the labour market and education, and that too much emphasis on retaining cultural
identities was hindering ethnic minority participation in both. Indeed, the same Council that had
advocated the ‘multicultural’ integration of minorities in 1979 now advised the government to focus on
the civic integration of allochtonen (non-natives) instead of minorities and to balance the rights of
immigrants with obligations.
Contrary to popular belief therefore, a public commitment to an idea of multiculturalism was by no means
certain even at this early stage. Two years later, Frits Bolkestein had initiated a now familiar debate on the
promotion of a Leitkultur of western values. The important feature of this debate was the extent to which
it centred on an objection to Islam, and more precisely the role Islamic culture allegedly played in
9
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
hindering the integration of immigrants. Bolkestein’s initiated a parliamentary debate on minorities in
1992. While his binary defence of ‘our liberal culture’ against their ‘Islamic culture’ may not have been
widely shared, the alleged multicultural elements of Ethnic Minorities Policy that he criticized tapped into
a Zeitgeist which maintained that the integration of immigrants had been limited and that something had
to be done. A new vision of integration was therefore emerging and by 1994 a ruling cabinet consisting
of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats introduced the Policy Memorandum Integration of Ethnic
Minorities (Contourennota Integratiebeleid Etnische Minderheden). This emphasised – at a very early
stage compared to the rest of Western Europe (Mouritsen, 2010)
– ‘good citizenship’ and ‘self-
responsibility’ in a manner that promoted a shift away from disadvantaged groups towards individuals
(allochtonen), and from emphasizing cultural and multicultural policies towards socio-economic
incorporation policies. The notion of citizenship (burgerschap) that was achieving traction reflected a
view that the duties of citizenship had too long been under emphasised, and so in 1998 the ‘purple’
cabinet (a coalition of social-democrats and liberals) introduced the Civic Integration Act (Wet
Inburgering Nederland) which obligated migrants to take language lessons and introductory courses on
institutions and practices of society. Although civic integration courses were initially introduced as
instruments to facilitate immigrants’ socio-economic integration, they would soon be transformed into
requirements for obtaining residence permits and legal citizenship (staatsburgerschap).
Each of these developments was well underway long before 9/11 and other terrorist activity had
contributed a security imperative to the revision of integration policies. Thus Paul Scheffer’s (2000)
widely cited critique of multiculturalism in the Netherlands, ‘The Multicultural Drama’ (Het
multiculturele drama), gave form to the view that the Dutch had been too generous in accepting cultural
difference, while ignoring basic liberal democratic values and the importance of learning Dutch language,
culture and history. The article firmly oriented debates on the failure of Dutch multicultural policies to the
10
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
role of Islam in the failure of the integration of Muslim migrants, before the fallout from 9/11 and
domestic developments such as the electoral victory of the populist Fortuyn Party (which promised
policies of ‘zero migration’ and a ‘cold war against Islam’, and which compelled other parties to
reposition themseselves on immigration and integration). The murder of filmmaker and columnist Theo
van Gogh in 2004 by a Dutch-Moroccan extremis elevated the sense of a schism between Muslim
minorities and Dutch society as a whole. The murder entrenched a perception of Islam’s incompatibility
with western democratic values, and arguably marked the moment when the relationship between political
unity and religious-cultural diversity came to be symbolised by the ‘Muslim question’.
By 2002, a new Minister of Aliens’ Affairs and Integration (named by the press ‘Iron Rita’) introduced
her ‘new style’ Integration Policy that built upon earlier ideas of ‘citizenship’ and ‘self-responsibility’
which were salient in the 1990s, but which now contained a stronger emphasis on the requirements of
minority cultural adaptation. This marked the beginning of a period in which existing multicultural
policies would be withdrawn (such as bilingual education schemes), or modified (such as making
subsidies more conditional for ethnic minority associations), while new integration and citizenship
policies insisting on minority (cultural) adaptation were being introduced. In 2003, a new Nationality Act
came into force, introducing a naturalization test for oral and written language skills and knowledge of
Dutch society. Other requirements were added later, such as participation in a naturalization ceremony in
2006 and a pledge of solidarity to Dutch society (verklaring van verbondenheid) in 2009. Prior to this, in
2007 a new Civic Integration Act (Wet Inburgering) had already made the acquisition of a permanent
residence status dependent on a successful civic integration test, in addition to making people pay for
their civic integration courses and permits. Of course the 2006 Integration Abroad Act (Wet inburgering
Buitenland) linked this directly to new migration, requiring as it did newcomers to demonstrate language
competencies and knowledge about Dutch culture and society prior to entering the Netherlands.
11
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
That the Dutch multiculturalism backlash was both early and a peculiar mixture of liberalism and
modernist civic nationalism, in part reflects the paucity of effective positive integration measures in such
areas as education, employment and housing, and the fiscal vulnerability of a comprehensive welfare state
to these failures. But it also reflects the lack of multicultural civic integration, understood as insertion of
cultural and religious diversity, and sensitivity to such diversity, in the mainstream of an increasingly
egalitarian and secularist society. The pillarisation of Islam informed the early development of a Dutch
version of Germany’s Leitkultur concerns, which was less conservative and more clearly anti-religious
than was the case in Germany. Here, incremental anxiety about the social and political segregation of
Muslims became coupled with an assertive liberal-way-of-life-‘Dutchness’ – which, while deeply
resonant with cosmopolitan elites, was also advanced by right wing parties. This way of life was
associated with egalitarianism, feminism, autonomy, secularism and traditions of tolerance, but not, since
the early nineties, and certainly not compared to Britain, with any a great appreciation of the value of
diversity (let alone Islam), nor of the need for its ‘burgerschap’ to make room for such diversity
(Duyvendak & Scholten, 2012: 280). Are there similarities here in the British case?
Of course British multiculturalism is rooted in its specific historical background of imperial nationhood
and a concept of citizenship. That is to say that in the move from an imperial to a post-imperial power,
Britain approached the ‘jus soli’ (place of birth) and ‘jus sanguinis’ (parental origin) fork in the road but
took a distinct path by implementing a peculiar synthesis of mainly jus soli with a doctrine of continuing
allegiance to the Crown. Accordingly, ‘those born as subject of the crown remained subjects, regardless
of emigration or even naturalisation’ (Koslowski, quoted in Owen, 2005: 9). For example, the 1948
British Nationality Act granted freedom of movement to all formerly or presently dependent, and now
Commonwealth, territories (irrespective of whether their passports were issued by independent or colonial
12
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
states) by creating the status of ‘Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies’ (CUKC). Until they
acquired one or other of the national citizenships in these post-colonial countries, formerly British
subjects continued to retain their British status (Lester, 2008). This is one of the reasons why a common
distinction between national minority rights and ethno-cultural minority rights contained within
Anglophone social and political theory is not easily transposed on to Britain (see Modood, 2007). From a
national cultural perspective, therefore, beyond legal conceptions of citizenship, rests on what Asari,
Haliliopoulou and Mock (2008: 1) consider the ‘bitter irony’ of British multiculturalism since:
[A]ll of the civic, assimilative signifiers upon which a multicultural British or for that matter English
national identity could potentially draw from the existing historical-cultural matrix of myths and
symbols are deeply implicated in the project of empire – a political project that is not only past but
conceptually discredited; associated, and not unjustly either, with hierarchy and racism.
What this interpretation under-emphasises is how migrant communities and British born generations have
been recognised as ethnic and racial minorities requiring state support and differential treatment
specifically in order to overcome obstacles in their exercise of citizenship, and to prevent, minimise and
redress an impairment of their civic status. So rather that assimilative and national-civic ‘signifiers’, there
developed a multicultural minority incorporation, which had a civic intent in the sense of equal treatment
understood as anti-discrimination, removing of barriers to participation, and anti-racism. This stresses a
different type of civic incorporation from the civic assimilation in a historically tainted imperial nation, of
which the quote speaks. This includes how, under the remit of several Race-Relations Acts (RRAs) the
state has sought to integrate ethnic and racial minorities into the labour market and other key arenas of
British society through an approach that has promoted equal access as an example of equality of
opportunity (Lester, 1998). Indeed, it is now nearly forty years since the introduction of a third RaceRelations Act (1976) cemented a state sponsorship of Race Equality by consolidating – and cumulatively
building upon - earlier, weaker legislative instruments (RRA 1965 and 1968).
13
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Alongside its broad remit spanning public and private institutions; recognition of indirect discrimination
and the later imposition of a statutory public duty to promote ‘good race-relations’, it also created the now
defunct Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (which merged into the Equality and Human Rights
Commission (EHRC)) to assist individual complainants and monitor the implementation of the Act. This
is an example, according to Joppke (1999: 642), of a citizenship that has amounted to ‘a precarious
balance between citizenship universalism and racial group particularism [that] stops short of giving
special group rights to immigrants.’ What it also suggests is that the creation of a space from which to
begin to redress racially structured barriers to participation represents a defining characteristic in the
British approach to integrating minorities.
Yet the British case is not solely comprised of anti-
discrimination, for during the 1990s a specific form of multiculturalism emerged through developing
certain racial equality discourses and policies beyond their starting points in a response to minority ethnic
and religious assertiveness (Modood, 2007). These rejected assimilationist perspectives and were
inclusive of ethno-religious minority groupings, and took hold in a cumulative and progressive
institutional form in, for example, the outlawing of religious discrimination and the incitement to
religious hatred. It also took educational form in the inclusion of some non-Christian, non-Jewish faith
schools within the maintained sector in England (Meer, 2010).
In 1999, the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry’s examination of police forces also introduced the concept of
‘institutional racism’. Shortly afterwards, the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (CMEB)
made policy recommendations to help ‘a confident and vibrant multicultural society’ take advantage of
‘its rich diversity’ so that Britain should realise its full potential (CMEB, 2000: viii). Entitled The Future
of Multi-Ethnic Britain, their report strongly endorsed both the possibility and desirability of forging a
meta-membership of ‘Britishness’ under which diversity could be sustained. Its recommendations not
14
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
only sought to prevent discrimination or overcome its effects; they also advocated an approach that could
move beyond conceptions of formal equality by recognising the substantive elements of ‘real differences
of experience, background and perception’ (CMEB, 2000: 296). It recommended that central government
take steps in formally declaring Britain ‘a multicultural society’, hoping that such an approach would
invalidate the social and political inequalities derived from minority cultural differences. This document
was criticized, not only from the right but also by liberals who believed that its approach flouted
universalistic principles, not least those recommendations which promoted diversity as a means to
facilitate equality. Moreover, in the summer of 2001, after civil unrest and rioting in cities in the north of
England, multiculturalist policies became subject to further critique. A local Bradford report set the
pattern by arguing that particular communities, widely understood as Muslim communities, were selfsegregating (Ouseley, 2001). This tendency was described in another report as part of a wider (and so not
just Muslim) phenomenon of leading ‘parallel lives’ (Cantle, 2001), after which a more integrationist
discourse became prevalent in linking between community cohesion, belonging, citizenship, and civicnational identity. Yet what largely goes unnoticed are the ways in which the rediscovery of ‘citizenship’
discourses in the policy zeitgeist owes much less to anxieties about Muslims in Britain, and much more to
a reforming government in waiting’s commitment to civic renewal. For example, working closely with
New Labour and Tony Blair, Giddens (1998: 78) drew on some of the core concerns of social capital
theorists to propose his ‘third way’ solution to an alleged ‘civic decline’:
In contrast to the old left, which tended to be dismissive of worries about civic decline, the new politics
accepts that such anxieties are genuine. Civic decline is real and visible in many sectors of contemporary
societies . . . It is seen in the weakening sense of solidarity in some local communities and urban
neighbourhoods, high levels of crime, and the break-up of marriages and families.
Thus Giddens (2000: 73) saw the focus of a New Labour administration as ‘education, incentives,
entrepreneurial culture, flexibility, devolution, and the cultivation of social capital’. And it is significant
15
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
how in his first speech as Prime Minister, Tony Blair (1997) invoked the concept of social capital, and
some of the key concerns of theorists of social capital, in maintaining that New Labour would ‘recreate
the bonds of civic society and community’. Indeed, even while they were still in opposition, the Blair
administration undertook a Commission on Social Justice (1994: 308) which reported that social capital
was one means of addressing the civic deficit and material disadvantage of marginalized communities
Thus before and during taking office Blair (1998: 20) committed New Labour to: ‘promoting civic
activism as a complement to (but not a replacement for) modern government. […] Promoting better state
and civic support for individuals and parents as they meet their responsibilities is a critical contemporary
challenge, cutting across our approach to education, welfare, and crime reduction’. What is therefore
being argued is that the years immediately prior to and after Labour’s general election victory in 1997 a
range of key actors, including politicians, pundits, academics, think-tanks and pressure groups, became
increasingly concerned about a range of different problems, of which civic integration/participation was
only one, but which closely corresponding to concerns of social capital theorists. Kisby (2006) has shown
this pursuasively, including how these perceived problems included concerns about a ‘democratic deficit’
and low voter turnout and, in particular, about civic and political disengagement and cynicism among
young people. What needs to be stressed is that issues of Muslim integration initially came to rest in this
mould before that mould would be later re-cast. Thus when the term community cohesion enters the
lexicon, following an inquiry into civil unrest or ‘rioting’ in some Muslim areas in the North of England,
the commissioners conceive it as encompassing a ‘domain of social capital’ which facilitates ‘people [to]
feel connected to their co-residents’ (Cantle, 2001: 74).
Nevertheless by 2002, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act now explicitly, in the test that
applicants seeking British citizenship must sit, requires ‘a sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or
Scottish Gaelic’ and also ‘a sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom’ (Jacobs and Rea,
16
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
2007). Immigrants seeking to settle in the UK (applying for an ‘indefinite leave to remain’) also must pass
the test. If they do not have sufficient knowledge of English, applicants have to attend English for
Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and citizenship classes. In explanatory documents, the Home
Office stresses that the tests aim at ‘integration’, but without this meaning ‘complete assimilation’ (Home
Office, 2004: 14). What has been taking place in Britain cannot therefore accurately be called a ‘retreat’
of multiculturalism. Certainly it is true that the inclusion of ethnic minorities is now increasingly
premised upon greater degrees of qualification. However, the British approach still promotes the
mainstreaming of ethnic monitoring and positive duties of care. Critiques of the emergent
multiculturalism of the 1990s continue to emphasise what is usually present in some form in most
accounts of multiculturalism (Meer and Modood, 2014). The question currently facing British
multiculturalism concerns the extent to which the recognition of diversity needs to be offset with civic
incorporation, or, more profoundly, to what extent multiculturalism and citizenship can be mutually
constitutive and defined in interdependent terms in a way that is inclusive of Muslims.
Germany and Denmark: The backlash in non-multicultural states
Thus far we have discussed the sequence, political provenance and permutation of counter
multiculturalist movements in two states that had previously adopted favourable, though very different,
approaches. What, however, can be said of a ‘retreat’ in countries which had never ‘advanced’
multiculturalist public policies? To explore this we can begin with Germany, a country that has, until
relatively recently, displayed a long tradition of recruiting ‘guest workers’ from neighbouring countries.
For example, between the 1890s and the First World War, during a period of rapid industrial growth, it
recruited large numbers of seasonal workers from Poland and the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires
to address labour shortages (Bade, 1995). During the Weimar Republic, fewer numbers were recruited, as
a result of the Great Depression and rules that allowed foreign labour only if it could be shown that no
17
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
German workers were available. After the Second World War, three periods of recruitment may be
distinguished: firstly, the arrival between 1945 and 1949 of nearly twelve million German refugees and
expatriates; secondly, the importation of ‘guest workers’ from Turkey, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal,
Yugoslavia and other Mediterranean countries during the 1950s and 1960s to fill shortages of industrial
labour; and thirdly, the three million ethnic Germans who returned to Germany following reunification.
Despite this, until the late 1990s German citizenship laws meant that in order to obtain German
nationality applicants would need to prove German descent (Panayi, 2004). German citizenship was not
automatically granted, therefore, to people born on German soil, meaning that in the post-war period
second and third generation immigrants remained outside its formal citizenry and so enjoyed fewer civil
and political rights in the country of their birth than their non-minority peers. As a consequence, though
Germany does have constitutional protections, politicians have not often faced electoral pressures to deal
with issues of racism and accommodation of minority needs. The important point is that until 1998,
Germany did not officially recognise the existence of migrants and ethnic diversity in society (MeierBraun, 2002). This political stance was adopted in 1973 by the official recruitment ban on foreign guest
workers and the slogan ‘Germany is not an immigration country’ – which reflected a political attitude but
not the social reality (Eckhardt, 2007). Germans have struggled to find acceptable ways to express
collective pride and a shared sense of identity since the traumas of the Second World War. Post-war West
Germany defined itself in contrast with Nazi Germany or an autocratic East Germany, often in European
terms (Faas, 2007). What positive definitions of national identity did emerge they tended to restrict
themselves to a lowest common denominator, the most distinctive of which was Verfassungspatriotismus
(patriotism to the Constitution), a concept introduced by Sternberger (1979/1992) and popularised by
Habermas (1992), amongst others. This refers to the West German Constitution of 1949, which was also
adopted by the former East Germans in 1990 (with little political debate). This document builds on a
18
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
longer German tradition of the Rechtsstaat or rule of law (which was important in the work of both Max
Weber and Carl Schmitt, for example). The Constitution is said to express positive ideals in which
Germans can take pride, e.g. the inviolable dignity of human life and the duty of the state to provide the
conditions for individual fulfilment.
It was only in the 1980s, more than 25 years after the arrival of the first guest workers that a debate
surrounding multiculturalism developed in Germany. Since then German academics and politicians have
controversially debated and developed the concept of multiculturalism (see for instance Radtke, 1994;
Schulte, 1999; Bukow et al., 2001). Some authors (see Kiesel, 1996) focused upon its ideological
dimensions while others (including centre-right and right-wing political parties) regarded multiculturalism
as a threat. Demographic reasons for immigration (e.g. ageing population, shrinking birth rates) were
ignored in favour of the preservation of cultural and national homogeneity (Herbert, 2003). The Catholic
and Protestant churches introduced the term ‘multicultural society’, which is closely related to
multiculturalism, in 1980 during a day of the foreign fellow citizen with a view of broadening the public’s
view of this guest worker group. Instead of viewing the ‘foreigners’ only in terms of their economic value
and problems, the German population should recognise the various foreign cultures which migrant
workers had brought with them as an enrichment of German culture (Von Dirke, 1994). The subsequent
debate over fairer terms of inclusion was driven by members of the Green Party as well as some more
progressive figures within the conservative Christian Democrats (Vertovec and Wessendorf, 2010).
However, in the early 1990s, some high profile episodes of racial violence prompted introspection on the
assertion of German social tolerance. It is around this period in 1993 that the term ‘multiculturalism’
achieved a degree of salience, and translations of the work of Charles Taylor featured in intellectual
discussion. Habermas (1994), for example, elaborated an idea of nationality that would no longer be
19
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
linked to ethnicity, but based on a continuing process of civilisation. The cultural embedding of (West)
German democracy, he argued, should not be designed to ‘cultureless’ besides or beyond the advanced
welfare state of the post-war period. This embryonic consideration of pluralism and diversity in public
discourse was quickly challenged, however, in the Leitkultur debates of the early 2000s, indeed
conservative Christian Democratic Union politicians such as Jörg Schönbohm and Friedrich Merz had
already begun to argue in 1999, in opposition to the then newly elected centre-left government of the
Social Democrats and the Green Party, that multiculturalism would encourage social conflict and
undermine a common set of values.
Despite this criticism the new Schröder administration (1998-2005) introduced new laws for immigration,
integration and citizenship that would address the concept of a volk, as well as establishing an
Independent Commission on Immigration (the Süssmuth Commission), which in July 2000 recommended
establishing clearer application criteria, actively recruiting skilled migrants, improving asylum
procedures, and implementing a comprehensive integration programme (Kruse et al., 2003). In reaction to
the Süssmuth Commission, in autumn 2000 Friedrich Merz, then chair of the Christian Democratic
Union, demanded that immigrants be willing to accept German mores which he termed ‘liberal German
Leitkultur’. This initiated a series of contentious debates on Leitkultur in the aftermath to 9/11 which
seriously undermined efforts by the government to secure the level of political consensus required to
introduce legislation based on the Commission’s recommendations.
For whereas previously the
formulation of a German national identity was hampered by a Nazi past, or the Communist East, the
Leitkultur debate was oriented toward a new ‘other’, namely immigrants, especially Turkish-origin
Muslims. The debate over Leitkultur was thus twinned with debates over the suitability of Turkey for
membership of the European Union - often employing very similar argumentation.
20
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Since 2005, applicants for citizenship have been required to show their ‘commitment’ to the ‘free and
democratic order of the Constitution of the Republic of Germany’, an obligatory ‘commitment’ which
stems from the belief that immigrants need to be publicly reminded of the primacy of the German
Constitution. This led to a slew of new legislation such as the Immigration Law (2005), which is geared
toward integration strategies, and the invitation to migrants and civil society actors to take part in four
National Integration Summits (since 2006). Further Islam conferences have sought to focus on the
interaction between the national majority and Muslim minorities. Each of these are said to comprise
‘milestones’ in that they speak with minorities and not solely about them. This is evident in the Federal
Commissioner for Integration Maria Böhmer’s (CDU) statement in which she revised an earlier position
in stating: ‘Germany is not an immigration country, but an integration country’. To this end formal
citizenship can be acquired through a process of naturalisation after eight years of legal residence,
provided the applicant has sufficient German language skills and other civic competencies. The
amendment to the Citizenship Law (2000) means that the children of ‘foreigners’ now automatically
acquire German citizenship if one parent has been legally residing in Germany for at least eight years
with a ‘right to abode’ permit. These children can retain dual nationality until the age of twenty-three,
after which they have to choose between German citizenship and the citizenship of their parents.
In 2010, Thilo Sarrazin published a controversial book entitled ‘Germany Is Doing Away With Itself’
which sold over one million copies and sparked a long and often heated debate over culture and
integration in Germany. In his book, Sarrazin denounces the failure of Germany’s post-war immigration
policy. He advocates a restrictive immigration policy with the exception of the highly skilled and the
reduction of state welfare benefits, and describes many Arab and Turkish immigrants as unwilling to
integrate. He calculates that Muslim population growth may well overwhelm the German population
within a couple of generations at the current rate, and that their intelligence is lower as well. Polls at the
21
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
time suggested that almost half of the German population (including Social Democrat members) agree
with Sarrazin's political views and 18 percent would vote for his party if he started one.
Significant, again, is timing. Germany, refusing its immigration country status well into the nineties,
while having a relatively benign experience of socio-economic incorporation of immigrants, only began
to in earnest of integration around the millennium. When it finally did, discussion revolved around
conditions of citizenship and naturalisation. These conditions, no longer ethnic (Faist, 2008), were
predominantly conceptualised in securitized political cultural terms, i.e. as a required capacity for civic
maturity and emotional allegiance to liberal institutions. In a country that had experienced what lack of
such maturity could entail, and in the aftermath of 9/11, Islamic radicalism was easily paralleled to
Germany's ghosts from the past. Its civic integrationist turn became dominated by the perceived need to
make new liberal democrats out of traditional Muslims, and its 'crisis of multiculturalism' came to denote
not the failure of any cultural minority incorporation policy (of which there was none), but the mere
acceptance of civically unassimilated groups living their parallel lives in Germany
In recent years, the Conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) has continued to frame citizenship as a
reward for successful integration whereas the Social Democrats (SPD) who have always lobbied for dual
nationality and consider it a precondition for successful integration. However, as a result of the most
recent grand coalition negotiations in the new Merkel cabinet (since 2013), people from migrant
backgrounds born in Germany will for the first time be able to apply for dual citizenship rather than
deciding for one nationality between the ages of 18 and 23. This policy change is most significant for the
country's sizable Turkish population, although it will uphold an existing dual nationality ban for later
arrivals who choose to become German citizens. There is now also cross-party consensus that Germany is
a multicultural immigration society even though Chancellor Merkel and others said that multiculturalism
22
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
as a public policy has failed. Instead, integration has become the buzzword in recent years under
Chancellor Merkel (since 2005) in both political and educational debates with intercultural education
being a strong component of the federal curricula frameworks (see for instance Faas, 2011). In 2013,
Aydan Özoğuz became the first ever woman with Turkish roots and Muslim member of the German
Federal Government as Minister of State for Immigration, Refugees and Integration – another sign that
underlines Germany's revised approach towards diversity.
Unlike Germany, Denmark has had comparatively lower levels of contemporary immigration, and
historically, in the early post-war period, immigration only really originated from other Nordic and
western European countries (there has been free labour mobility between the Nordic countries since
1954). During the 1960s and early 1970s, guest workers were recruited from countries such as Turkey,
Yugoslavia and Pakistan to undertake work which Danes were not prepared to. However, the numbers
were modest and after recruitment of guest workers was stopped in 1973, the main forms of immigration
were family reunification and, from the 1980s, asylum. Today, ethnic minorities from non-western
countries comprise about six percent of the Danish population of five million (Jensen, 2010). Danish
immigration and integration policies have passed through three stages (Mouritsen & Olsen, 2011).
Neither of these may be called ‘multiculturalism’ in any conventional, positive sense. Larger
municipalities have adopted “street level diversity practices” (Hedetoft, 2010: 111) and use immigrant
friendly discourse. By contrast the negative attention at the national level to immigration related diversity
per se and to all forms of minority recognition, as well as attempts to curb diversity through tough asylum
laws and integrationist measures in the name of Danish “fundamental values, which must be accepted by
people wanting to live here” (as the then Prime minister Fogh Rasmussen famously put it in his 2003
New year’s speech (Rasmussen, 2003) could be seen as emerging “Danish anti-multiculturalism”
(Lægaard, 2013)
23
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
In the seventies and early eighties, where numbers were low, emphasis was on equal treatment and eliteled social tolerance. This reflected a national self-image as an open and tolerant country, assister of its
Jews during the Second World War, and promoter of human rights principles in international relations
(Østergaard-Nielson, 2003). While some worried that Denmark now received ‘families with roots in
cultures which deviate strongly from the Danish [culture],’ as one conservative MP put it (Hagensen,
cited in Hvenegaard Lassen 2002: 150), he and others were concerned with how immigrants could come
to live on an equal footing with Danes in the welfare society, in a context in which ‘culture’ might
become an obstacle to equality, although most politicians would assume that some allowance should be
made for immigrants to retain part of their customs – not least because many were assumed to return to
their countries of origin. During the 1980s recession, and borrowing from Sweden, Denmark introduced
local election rights after three years residence in 1981, and in 1983 one of the world’s most liberal
asylum laws, which included a ‘de facto’ refugee category. Yet it took none of Sweden’s positive steps
towards official recognition of immigrants’ rights to freedom of cultural choice (Borevi, 2010).
In the next stage, during a significant influx of refugees in the 1980s, which briefly placed immigration
high on the agenda, the onus was increasingly on the obligations of individual immigrants to make an
effort to integrate into Danish society. The liberal asylum law was tightened and resulted in a serious
political rift between the Social Democrats and the rest of the Left. The third stage from the late 1990s
until recently was characterized by the high political saliency of immigration with a gradual shift of focus
from labour market integration towards ‘Danish values’ integration, active citizenship and attempts to
counter Islamic radicalisation. The portrayal of immigration as a threat to national cohesion and national
identity has emanated in particular from the populist Danish People’s Party, which has played a pivotal
role as a stable parliamentary support of the right-wing coalition government that was in power from
24
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
2001-11.
While always more ‘liberal’ than multicultural, some policies did in fact accommodate
minorities in the realms of language, education and culture (Mouritsen & Olsen, 2011). Migrants’ ethnic
(not religious) organizations enjoyed some financial support. Until 2002 public funding was allocated to
mother tongue teaching, and Denmark retains a publicly supported system, originating in the nineteenth
century, of ‘independent schools’ (friskoler), which also has been used to found Muslim faith schools.
But the benign, liberal approach did not last longer than a few years and never developed into anything
like British or Dutch multicultural public policy.
Since the late eighties migrant minorities were called upon to take more responsibility for their
‘functioning’ and adjustment to Danish society, particularly in terms of not burdening the welfare system.
In 1999, Denmark took a sharp turn towards a more integrationist, or effectively assimilationist approach,
introducing an Integration Act with a mandatory introduction programme, including up to 2000 hours of
language training. In all legislation respect for cultural identity is omitted and self-support became the
overall goal (Mouritsen & Olsen, 2011). The integrationist-assimilationist approach was intensified after
the 2001 election, which had focussed on unemployment and welfare costs of immigrants (Jensen, 2010).
A new, lower ‘introduction benefit’ was introduced for new immigrants (2002), along with ‘integration
contracts’ (2005) and severe restrictions in family re-unification rights. The new right-wing coalition now
made systematic use of the concept of medborgerskab or ‘good citizenship’, as distinct from legal
citizenship (statsborgerskab), emphasising that one could be a good citizen without enjoying the political
rights possessed by legal citizens, and indeed that proving one’s capacity for the former was a
precondition of aspiring to the latter. Danish ‘anti-multiculturalism’, in the absence of any special rights
or programs to dismantle, increasingly centred on limiting diversity through the tightening of membership
access, in consecutive agreements between the Danish People’s Party and the government between 2002
and 2010, e.g. with longer required period of legal residence, a very difficult history, politics and high
25
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
culture citizenship test (the Danish People’s Party’s pet idea), and an extremely tough language
requirement, which effectively blocked citizenship for most non-European and non-academic applicants.
Access to permanent residence and family reunification was also progressively tightened throughout the
period, e.g. with the introduction of a complicated point system rewarding labour market activity,
language facility, educational level, and voluntary ‘active citizenship’ (Mouritsen, 2010, 2011; Mouritsen
& Olsen 2011).
Following 9/11, the government focused increasingly on defending liberal values such as freedom of
expression, personal autonomy, separation of politics and religion, and tolerance. This issue exploded
with the publication in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad
to test alleged problems of self-censorship and encourage Muslims to accept ‘scorn, mockery and
ridicule’ to be able to live in a secular democracy. The episode illustrates well how Danish citizenship
culture had become increasingly identity-related in ways that made it appropriate to speak of a
culturalised civic nationalism (Mouritsen 2006; 2009), whereby political and public life was awash with
notions of an egalitarian and liberal democratic superiority, which was presented, however, as embedded
in the particularity of Danish national history (including, for some politicians, the free-spiritedness that
emanates from Danish Lutheranism).
There was a sense that universal values are realised more, or in a better way here than elsewhere, or even
that acquiring such citizenship qualities was the function of a long historical heritage (which excluded
those born off the Northern shores of democracy). A peculiar national værdikamp (literally, ‘value
struggle’) was staged , not so much over the actual semantic content of Danish values, but over whether
these values were threatened by, should be defined in contrast to, or had to be defended against an
increasingly essentialised Islamic other. While much of the Danish version of the Leitkultur debate (in a
26
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
manner very similar to the Netherlands) was about standing up for the comprehensive egalitarianism and
feminism of social democratic state institutions, which always aimed to ‘liberate’ its citizens, it also
concerned fear that diversity in and by itself would jeopardize the trust, solidarity and cohesion of a small
but open society, which historically celebrated its tribe-like sameness as a resource against the world
(Hedetoft, 2010: 116-17).
Much as Germany relative to the Netherlands and Britain, Denmark was slow to accept its status as an
immigration country and to follow its neighbour Sweden’s initiatives in the field of active labour market
integration policies, let alone anti-discrimination. This, as well as its choice to part company with both
Norway and Sweden in the field of citizenship and residence policy (Brochmann & Hagelund, 2010: 348)
was partly due to party political, electoral, and coalition-logic reasons – above all the role of a politically
very capable new right party – and partly the hold of a particular ethno-cultural citizenship and national
identity tradition, , which emanated from nineteenth century wars with Germany and subsequent loss of
territory, and which continued to value the idea of cultural homogeneity, even as old style ‘Danishness’
had become diluted. This trajectory significantly contrasts with Swedish state modernism, always
prevented Denmark from combining its deep-seated social egalitarianism with serious susceptibility to
multiculturalism (Jensen, 2014).
Recent years have seen very important changes. The centre-left government, led by the social democrat
Thorning-Schmidt, which came into office in 2011 has rolled back some of the toughest citizenship and
residence legislation from the 00’s, e.g. lessening the language requirement.. Asylum law administration
and family reunification practices have also been slightly eased, and most recently dual citizenship has
become allowed. Symbolically important the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs
has been dismantled and many policies which were previously exclusively framed as having to do
27
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
integration and immigrants, are now processed as broader social, educational and labour marked policies
(Lægaard, 2013). The change of government was also a change in discourse. The previous government
had overplayed its hand with yet more proposals in 2010 for tightened border controls and naturalisation,
and Thorning-Schmidt rightly sensed that the electorate thought that tightening had gone too far or at least
far enough (this was confirmed in opinion polls at the time). The new government pledged to create “a
new balance where integration gets priority over exclusion,” spoke of immigrants as regular citizens with
rights who wanted the same things as everybody else, and called for more “decency and respect” in
immigration and citizenship policies, promising that “all those who wish to be part of Denmark should
not constantly be met with new, unreasonable demands” (Danish Government, 2011: 51).
Opinion polls consistently confirm high and growing levels of social tolerance in Denmark, also
compared to most other European countries (a fact which contrast with the xenophobic image the country
earned in international opinion during the cartoon crisis) (Gundelach, 2011), and its metropolitan
everyday multiculturalism remains in place. But debates about Islam and integration continue, albeit at a
lower level after the financial crises has shifted public attention towards the more immediate issues of
unemployment and the fiscal sustainability of the welfare state. The normative content of Denmark’s
‘civic turn’ remains comprehensive, combative, and egalitarian way-of-life-oriented as in the Netherlands,
but also culturalised and ‘ethnicised’ in a backward looking way, which sits uneasily with any sensitivity
to cultural diversity. Unlike either Germany or Britain, the Danish Leitkultur and concern with good
citizenship harbour little self-doubt. Integrating immigrants – Muslims mainly – is still about teaching
them the liberal democratic virtues, traditions of active citizenship, and egalitarian norms that nonMuslims Danish society is deemed to possess in abundance already.
Conclusions: Complicating the Retreat
28
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
In several cases our survey of the emergence of civic and other allegedly ‘post-multicultural’
developments in these four countries points to both the resilient and porous nature of national models.
They are resilient where institutional opportunity structures have embedded and sedimented
multiculturalist public policies to a greater or lesser extent (as in the UK but not in the Netherlands), but
they are more porous where anxieties over Islam are repeatedly observable across the different national
frames of Denmark, Germany, and also the Netherlands. These centre on separatism in general and
Muslim alienation, estrangement (and ultimately violent radicalism) in particular. Indeed, Banting and
Kymlicka (2006: 7) point to a relationship between anti-multiculturalism and illiberal practices perceived
to be manifested within the kind of culture that is being accommodated. More precisely: ‘It is very
difficult to get public support for multiculturalism policies if the groups that are the main beneficiaries of
these policies are perceived to be carriers of illiberal cultural in order to maintain these practices’ (ibid.
54). Elsewhere Kymlicka (2005: 83) narrows this further in his conclusion that ‘if we put Western
democracies on a continuum in terms of the proportion of immigrants who are Muslim, I think this would
provide a good indicator of public opposition to multiculturalism’.
Across our cases the evidence supports the reading that citizenship have explicitly shifted onto the
identity of membership itself, but our discussion shows how the provenance of this development is in fact
quite mixed, taking into account issues of social capital in the UK, integration and national unity in the
Netherlands, social welfarism in Denmark, and to some extent national identity in Germany. That is not
to say that there are no convergences, even unlikely ones. For example it is striking to note the similarity
in the Dutch and Danish cases; although there was more multiculturalist policy in the former than in the
latter, the combined Danish ‘on-the ground’ municipal accommodation, together with targeted social
29
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
policy, resembles multicultural governance in the Netherlands. Indeed, in both cases a sharper secularism
and ethnicised conception of the nation cuts against the grain of a more pluralist nationhood in Britain.
Comparing Germany to the Netherlands and Britain, meanwhile, is to observe a number of points. The
first and most obvious is that the critique of multiculturalism and parallel societies has been noticeably
robust in a country which has seen little multiculturalism in the first place. The second is to register that
claims-making has been minimal though not absent, and has come from a largely disenfranchised migrant
and migrant descendant population. Here one might point to the role of the church, whose institutional
entrenchment in the welfare state delayed and watered down German implementation of EU antidiscrimination legislation, or indeed the continuing hold of the country's historical legacy of a language,
culture and descent based conception of Volk, which was not legally challenged, at least in part, because
of post war partition and the political necessity to provide for ‘natural’ German citizens in the East. The
point in each case is that the extent to which this marks a retreat of multiculturalism needs to be set
against the background that there is no simple account of an ‘advance’ of multiculturalism in each country
in the first place. That is to say that whereas some accounts employ the narrative of a relatively seamless
swing in the pendulum, that has moved the momentum from being in favour to being against multicultural
policies, we find it difficult not to observe how the momentum behind this pendulum has been staggered
across different national contexts with different starting point in this journey.
That is to say that in our analysis of the present fate of multiculturalism as a public policy – something
concerned with the ‘remaking of public identities in order to achieve an equality of citizenship that is
neither merely individualistic nor premised on assimilation’ (Modood, 2005: 5) - we must not ignore how
the pattern of its development in different national contexts is neither linear nor unbroken. This
substantiates a reading of incremental adaptation which argues that ‘change takes place, even in the
30
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
context of stability in formal programs, though processes of drift, conversion and layering’ (Banting and
Kymlicka, 2013: 4). The implication being that where there have been advances in policies of
multiculturalism, these have not been repealed uniformly, nor on occasion at all, but may equally have
been supplemented or ‘balanced out’ in civic integrationist approaches.
31
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Bibliography
Alexander, J. (2013) ‘Struggling over the mode of incorporation: backlash against multiculturalism in
Europe’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36 (4), 531-556.
Asari, E.-M., Halikiopoulou, D. and Mock, S. (2008) 'British National Identity and the Dilemmas of
Multiculturalism', Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 14(1), 1 - 28.
Back, L., Keith, M., Khan, A., Shukra, K. and Solomos, J. (2002) ‘New Labour's White Heart: Politics,
Multiculturalism and the Return of Assimilation’, The Political Quarterly, 73(4), 445-454
Bade, K. (1995) 'From Emigration to Immigration: The German Experience in the Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries', Central European History, 28, 507-35.
Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (2013) ‘Is there really a retreat from multiculutralism policies?’,
Comparative European Politics, 1-22
Banting, K. and Kymlicka, W. (eds) (2006) Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and
Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baumgartner F, Jones B. (1993) Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Bauböck, R., Ersbøll, E., Groenendijk, K. and Waldrauch, H (eds) (2006) Acquisition and Loss of
Nationality, Volume 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Bauböck, R. (2010) 'Studying Citizenship Constellations', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36
(5), 847 - 59.
Bauböck, R. and Joppke, C. (eds) (2010) How Liberal are Citizenship Tests? Florence: Robert
Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, EUI Working Paper
RSCAS 2010/41
Blair, T. (1997) Speech at the Aylesbury Estate, Southwark.
Blair, T. (1998) The Third Way: New Politics for the New Century, London: Fabian Society.
Brochmann, G. and Hagelund, A. (2010) Velferdens Grenser: Innvandringspolitikk og velferdsstat i
Skandinavia 1945-2010. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Brubaker, R. (2001) 'The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and Its Sequels
in France, Germany, and the United States', Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 531 - 48.
Bruquetas-Callejo, M., Garcés-Mascareñas, B. Penninx, R. and Scholten, P. (2006) Policymaking related
to immigration and integration. The Dutch Case. Amsterdam: IMISCOE
32
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Borevi, K. (2010) ’Sverige – mångkulturalismens flaggskepp i Norden’ [’Sweden – the flagship of
multiculturalism in Scandinavia’] in G. Brochmann & A. Hagelund (eds) Velferdens grenser.
Innvandringspolitikk og velferdsstat i Skandinavia 1945 – 2010, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Cantle, T. (2012) Interculturalism. Basignstoke: Palgrave.
Cantle, T. (2001) Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team, London: HMSO.
Commission on Social Justice (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal, London: Vintage.
Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (CMEB) (2000) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain,
London: Profile Books.
Danish Government (2011) Regeringsgrundlag: Et Danmark der står sammen [Government Platform: A
Denmark which stands united], Copenhagen: Folketinget.
Dolowitz D, and Marsh D. (1996) ‘Who Learns What from Whom: a Review of the Policy Transfer
Literature’. Political Studies, 44 (3), 43-57.
Eckardt, F. (2007) 'Multiculturalism in Germany: From Ideology to Pragmatism—and Back?', National
Identities, 9(3), 235 - 45.
Faas, D. (2007) ‘The Europeanisation of German Ethnic Identities: The Case of German and Turkish
Students in Two Stuttgart Secondary Schools’, International Studies in Sociology of Education,
17(1-2): 45-62.
Faas, D. (2010) Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth in Europe, Farnham:
Ashgate.
Faas, D. (2011) The Nation, Europe and Migration: A comparison of geography, history and citizenship
education curricula in Greece, Germany and England, Journal of Curriculum Studies 43(4): 47192.
Faist, T. (2008) ‘”We Are All "Republican" Now: Changes in, Prospects for, and Limits of Citizenship in
Germany’, in O.Schmidtke & S.Ozcurumez (eds.) Of States, Rights, and Social Closure:
Governing Migration and Citizenship. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 113-134.
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and Its Critics, Cambridge: Polity.
Gundelach, P. (2011) Små og store forandringer – Danskernes værdier siden 1981 [Small and large
changes – Values of Danes since 1981], Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Goodman, S. (2010) “Integration Requirements for Integration’s Sake? Identifying, Categorizing and
Comparing Civic Integration Policies,” in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (5): 753772
33
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Goodman, S. (2012) ‘Measurement and Interpretation Issues in Civic Integration Studies: A Rejoinder,”
in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38: 173-186
Habermas, J. (1992) 'Citizenship and National Identity: Some Reflections on the Future of Europe',
Praxis International, 12(1).
Habermas, J. (1994) 'Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State', in A. Gutmann
(ed) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Hansen, R. (2007) ‘Diversity, tntegration and the turn from multiculturalism in the United Kingdom’, in:
K. Banting, T. J. Courchene and F. L. Seidle (2007) (eds) Belonging: Diversity, Recognition and
Shared Citizenship in Canada. Montreal: Institute for Research in Public Policy.
Hedetoft, U. (2010). ‘Denmark versus multiculturalism’, in S.Vertovec and S. Wessendorf (eds) The
Multiculturalism Backlash. European discourses, policies and practices. London: Routledge,
pp.111-29.
Home Office (2004) Life in the United Kingdom. A Journey to Citizenship, Norwich: TSO.
Hogwood BW and Gunn LA. (1984) Policy Analysis for the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jensen, K. (2014) ‘What can and cannot be willed: how politicians talk about national identity and
immigrants’, Nations and Nationalism, forthcoming.
Jacobs, D. and Rea, A. (2007) 'The End of National Models? Integration Courses and Citizenship
Trajectories in Europe', International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(2), 264-83.
Joppke, C. (1999) 'How Immigration Is Changing Citizenship: A Comparative View', Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 22(4), 629 - 52.
Joppke, C. (2004) 'The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy', The British
Journal of Sociology, 55, 237-57.
Joppke, C. (2008) 'Immigration and the Identity of Citizenship: The Paradox of Universalism', Citizenship
Studies, 12(6), 533 - 46.
Kisby, B. (2006) 'Social Capital and Citizenship Education in Schools', British Politics, 1, 151-60.
Koopmans, R., Michalowski, I. and Waibel, S. (2012) ‘Citizenship rights for immigrants: national
political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980-2008’, American
Journal of Sociology.
Kostakopoulou, D. (2010) 'Matters of Control: Integration Tests, Naturalisation Reform and Probationary
Citizenship in the United Kingdom', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(5), 829 - 46.
34
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Kruse, I., Orren, H. E. and Angenendt, S. (2003) 'The Failure of Immigration Reform in Germany',
German Politics, 12(3), 129 - 45.
Kymlicka, W. (2005) 'The Uncertain Futures of Multiculturalism', Canadian Diversity, 4(1), 82-85.
Kymlicka, W. (2007) 'The New Debate on Minority Rights (and Postscript)', in A. S. Laden and D. Owen
(eds) Multiculturalism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25-59.
Kymlicka, W. (2008) Contribution to ‘The Challenges of Multiculturalism in Advanced Democracies’,
(Book symposium on P.M.Snyderman & l. Hagendoorn, When Ways of Life Collide),
Perspectives on Politics, 6(4), 804-6.
Kymlicka, W. (2010) ‘Testing the Liberal Multiculturalist Hypothesis: Normative Theories and Social
Science Evidence’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43, 257-71.
Lester, A. (1998) 'From Legislation to Integration: Twenty Years of the Race Relations Act', in T.
Blackstone, B. C. Parekh and P. Sanders (eds) Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda.
London: Routledge.
Lester, A. (2008) 'Citizenship and the Constitution', The Political Quarterly, 79(3), 388-403.
Levrau, F. and Loobuyck, P. (2013) ‘Should Interculturalism Replace Multiculturalism?’, Ethical
Perspectives, 20 (4), 605-630.
Levey, G. B. (2009) 'Secularism and Religion in a Multicultural Age', in G. B. Levey and T. Modood
(eds) Secularism, Religion, and Multicultural Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1-24.
Levey, G. B. and Modood, T. (eds) (2009) Secularism, Religion, and Multicultural Citizenship,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lægaard, S. (2013) 'Danish Anti-Multiculturalism? The Significance of the Political Framing of
Diversity', in P. Kivisto and Ö. Wahlbeck (eds) Debating Multiculturalism in the Nordic Welfare
States. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 170-196.
Mclaughlin, E. and Neal, S. (2004) 'Misrepresenting the Multicultural Nation', Policy Studies, 25(3), 155
- 74.
Meer, N. (2010) Citizenship, Identity and the Politics of Multiculturalism: The Rise of Muslim
Consciousness, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2014) ‘Cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism: is British multiculturalism a
‘Zombie category’?’, Identities. 10.1080/1070289X.2013.875028
Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2009a) 'The Multicultural State We're In: Muslims, ‘Multiculture’ and the
‘Civic Re-Balancing’ of British Multiculturalism', Political Studies, 57(3), 473-97.
35
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2009b) 'Refutations of Racism in The "Muslim Question"', Patterns of
Prejudice, 43(3), 335 - 54.
Meier-Braun, K.-H. (2002) Deutschland, Einwanderungsland, Frankfurt-am-Main: Surkamp.
Modood, T. (2005) Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity and Muslims in Britain, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Modood, T. (2013) Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea, Cambridge: Polity. 2nd Edition.
Modood, T. and Meer, N. (2011) 'Characterizing Contemporary Political Orientations in the Study of
Citizenship', in A. Triandafyllidou, T. Modood and N. Meer (eds) European Multiculturalisms:
Cultural, Religious and Ethnic Challenges. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mouritsen, P. (2006) 'The Particular Universalism of a Nordic Civic Nation: Common Values, State
Religion and Islam in Danish Political Culture', in T. Modood, A. Triandafyllidou and R. ZapataBarrero (eds) Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach. London:
Routledge, pp. 70-93.
Mouritsen, P. (2008) 'Political Responses to Cultural Conflict: Reflections on the Ambiguities of the
Civic Turn', in P. Mouritsen and K. E. Jørgensen (eds) Constituting Communities: Political
Solutions to Cultural Conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-30.
Mouritsen, P. (2009) 'The Culture of Citizenship. A Reflection on Civic Integration in Europe', in R.
Zapata-Barrero (ed) Citizenship Policies in the Age of Diversity. Europe at the Crossroads.
Barcelona: Cidob, pp. 23-35.
Mouritsen, P. (2011) ‘Beyond Postnational Citizenship. Access, Consequence, Conditionality’ in
Triandafyllidou, A., Modood, T. and Meer, N. (eds) (2011) European Multiculturalisms:
Cultural, Religious and Ethnic Challenges, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.88-115.
Mouritsen, P. and Olsen, T.V. (2011). ‘Denmark between liberalism and nationalism’, Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 36(4), 691-710.
Nannestad, P. (2004) 'Immigration as a Challenge to the Danish Welfare State?', European Journal of
Political Economy, 20(3), 755-67.
Orgad, L. (2009) '‘Cultural Defence’ of Nations: Cultural Citizenship in France, Germany and the
Netherlands', European Law Journal, 15(6), 719-37.
Østergaard-Nielsen, E. (2003) 'Counting the Costs: Denmark's Changing Migration Policies',
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 448-54.
Ouseley, H. (2001) Community Pride Not Prejudice: Making Diversity Work in Bradford, Bradford:
Bradford Vision.
36
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
Owen, D. (2005) Resistance in Movement: Illegal Immigrants and Global Government. Keynote
Presentation at the Sixth Graduate Conference in Political Theory, Difference, borders, others. 13
May.
Panayi, P. (2004) 'The Evolution of Multiculturalism in Britain and Germany: An Historical Survey',
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(5), 466 - 80.
Pind, S. (2008) ‘Åh Danmark’, http://www.soren-pind.dk/index.php?mod=weblog&cat=42.
Rasmussen, A. F. (2003) New Year’s Speech. Copenhagen: Statsministeriet.
Scheffer, P. (2000) ‘Het Multiculturele Drama’, NRC Handelsblad, January 29.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989) Immigrant Policy, The Hague: SDU.
Sniderman, P. M. & Hagendoorn, L. (2007) When Ways of Life Collide. Multiculturalism in the
Netherlands, Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press
Sternberger, D. (1979) ‘Verfassungspatriotismus’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 May
Weil, P. (2001) ‘Access to citizenship: a comparison of twenty-five nationality laws’, in Aleinikoff, T.A.
and Klusmeyer, D. (eds) Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices. Washington, DC:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Aknowledgements
Early research for this article was funded by the Sportgoods Foundation and Aarhus University’s Social
Science Faculty’s globalisation program, and later composition facilitated by the Royal Socety of
Edinburgh (RSE).
Bio
Nasar Meer is a Reader in Comparative Social Policy & Citizenship at Strathclyde University, and a
Royal Society of Edinburgh Research Fellow (2014-2019). His publications include Citizenship, Identity
and the Politics of Multiculturalism (2010, Palgrave), European Multiculturalisms (co-ed 2011, EUP),
Racialization & Religion (Ed. 2014, Routledge,) and Race & Ethnicity (Sage, 2014). He is a member of
the RSE Young Academy of Scotland and the Social Policy Association Executive [www.nasarmeer.com]
Per Mouritsen is a professor in the Department of political science and government at Aarhus
University. He has published numerous books and articles on political theory and on the historical and
comparative study of citizenship, national identity and civic integration.
Daniel Faas is Head of the Department of Sociology and Member of the University Council at Trinity
College Dublin. His publications include Negotiating Political Identities: Multiethnic Schools and Youth
37
In press-American Behavioral Scientist
in Europe (2010, Ashgate) and a number of journal articles on the intersection of migration and
education, notably curriculum design and development as well as diversity management.
Nynke de Witte is a Senior Researcher at the Dutch Court of Audit and specializes in the evaluation of
government policies. Her academic research focuses on European challenges of multiculturalism and the
role of Faith-based organizations in European cities.
38