This document discusses the challenges of multiculturalism. It begins by defining multiculturalism as referring to the complex issues surrounding cultural and religious diversity in society, and how that diversity is socially managed. It discusses multiculturalism from three perspectives: as an ideology, as a social issue, and as an academic field of study. Regarding approaches to multiculturalism, it argues recognition of differences is important but not enough - societies must also gain knowledge of differences through observation, develop tolerance of differences, and promote engagement across differences through mutual respect and finding common ground.

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcar20
ISSN: 1475-5610 (Print) 1475-5629 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcar20
The Challenges of Multiculturalism
Malory Nye
To cite this article: Malory Nye (2007) The Challenges of Multiculturalism, , 8:2, 109-123, DOI:
10.1080/14755610701458915
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610701458915
Published online: 19 Jul 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2434
View related articles
Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

2. THE CHALLENGES
OF MULTICULTURALISM
Malory Nye
Although the term multiculturalism is often understood on the public level as an
ideology or as a social programme (to be ‘for’ or ‘against’), I argue in this paper that the
term should also be understood to refer to the complex range of issues associated with
cultural and religious diversity in society, and the social management of the challenges
and opportunities such diversity offers. Understood in this sense, multiculturalism is not
an optional extra, it is not something that a society can choose to have or avoid. For any
country without closed borders then multiculturalism is a fact of today—it is present
within the society. What is important are the social and political responses to the
cultural and religious diversity that results from transnational flows and settlement of
people. This introduction to the collection of papers highlights the need to understand
multiculturalism as a process which is always contextual, and the role that state
management of difference in the successful development of diversity plays.
KEYWORDS multiculturalism; globalisation; Muslims; nationalism; multicultural
studies; citizens and denizens
There has been considerable debate in recent years in the UK, arguing about
the ‘death of multiculturalism’.1
What has emerged from the many newspaper and
magazine articles and TV debates is not so much a ‘death’ of anything but a series
of attempts to re-evaluate a term (and an idea) that continues to have a major
relevance to the world in which we live. Indeed, a very important starting point for
this paper is the crucial assumption that multiculturalism—and the challenges of
multiculturalism—form an integral part of the experiences of most societies and
nations in the twenty-first century. Indeed, it is perhaps right to say that for
most—if not all—parts of the contemporary world, the forces of globalisation and
multiculturalism are unavoidable. Some might argue that these forces are often
more harmful than beneficial at local and other levels, but it remains the case that
the forces of multiculturalism in many contemporary nation states are as
unavoidable as the tides of the sea. In fact, it is probably also the case that these
forces are usually felt most intensely within the most economically dynamic and
successful nations in today’s world.
Culture and Religion, Vol. 8, No. 2, July 2007
ISSN 1475-5610 print/1475-5629 online/07/020109-123
q 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14755610701458915

3. In this paper, I will explore the concept of multiculturalism and how the use
of this idea needs to be distinguished according to the various contexts in which it
is often used. In particular, I will argue that this concept needs to be understood
on an academic level—away from the many populist debates—as a description of
a series of issues that work at all levels of society. The term multiculturalism refers
not to any single entity—or ideology—but is a way of talking about a process that
is taking place in many different countries in different ways. In fact, to understand
multiculturalism it is necessary for us to understand the particularities of the
context. How multiculturalism is working (or not working) within the UK, will need
to be understood differently from in other contexts—such as France, Canada or
Malaysia. The term multiculturalism describes this process.
It is also very important to note that multiculturalism is not merely about
celebrating diversity—or having a positive attitude to the differences between
cultures and groups. For the processes of multiculturalism to be successfully dealt
with, the challenges that such differences present to society also need to be faced
at the level of national politics and state management. For example, Stuart Hall
argues that the term ‘multicultural’ (used adjectivally):
. . . describes the social characteristics and problems of governance posed by
any society in which different cultural communities live together and attempt to
build a common life while retaining some of their ‘original’ identity.
(Hall 2000, 209)
Building on this, he goes on to argue that the term ‘multiculturalism’ (as a
noun) describes:
the strategies and policies adopted to govern and manage the problems of
diversity and multiplicity which multicultural societies throw up. (Hall 2000, 209)
For this reason, the issues of multiculturalism should not be dealt with in a
laissez-faire or liberal political manner. Instead, the presence of diverse groups and
communities within a society requires the state to effectively manage and govern
within such multicultural contexts. The processes and challenges of multi-
culturalism require active management, to ensure that there is both respect for
differences across society as well as a sense of common ground. This is a necessity
not only for those of ‘minority’ or ‘migrant’ groups, but also for the majority group.
Multiculturalism is always an issue for the whole of society.
In short, the term multiculturalism describes the complex range of issues
associated with cultural and religious diversity in society, and the social
management of the challenges and opportunities such diversity offers.
Approaches to Multiculturalism
From this, there are many different responses to the challenges that
multiculturalism throw up. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are so many
different understandings of the term. Indeed, it has been argued by Samad (1997)
110 MALORY NYE

4. that the term ‘multiculturalism has different implications and meanings
depending on its social, political and disciplinary location’ and so multiculturalism
may be understood as either ‘conservative or radical, and social policy based upon
it can have different implications and outcomes depending on the context in
which cultural difference is negotiated’ (Samad 1997, 240).
Therefore, an important starting point for the discussion of multiculturalism
is to distinguish three different primary understandings of the concept:
. multiculturalism as an ideology
. multiculturalism as a social issue
. the academic study of multiculturalism
Multiculturalism as an Ideology
Many social commentators, particularly in the UK context, take the term
multiculturalism to refer primarily as an ideological concept, particularly as a social
programme of change. When taken in this sense, multiculturalism is seen as an
effort to create (or impose) a series of social relations between specific defined
groups, most often with the aim of establishing some level of social equality and
social justice. Although this is for many the main objective of multiculturalism,
I would argue that to understand multiculturalism only on this level is both
misleading and unhelpful. Indeed, as Pnina Werbner argues, ‘there are as many
multiculturalisms as there are political arenas for collective action
. . . Multiculturalism is always a specific negotiated order and no amount of
abstract philosophical or legal reasoning can prescribe a single “just” model’
(Werbner 1997, 263).
Within such arenas, the issue of multiculturalism becomes one of contest,
often setting up those who proscribe a suitable multicultural programme against
those who are in opposition to such a programme of equality and social justice
(anti-multiculturalists). In this case, the ideology of multiculturalism is often
perceived (on both sides) as politically left-of-centre and progressive, and the
charge is commonly made by anti-multiculturalists that such multicultural policies
(or programmes) are anti-nationalist. Therefore, it is common to hear in public
debates the distinction being made between multiculturalism (as a policy of
separation and/or segregation) and integration. As I shall argue below, any
context of multiculturalism does need to be developed with regard to national
issues (particularly issues of national identity), and it is a mistake to assume that
any ideology of multiculturalism will be necessarily anti-nationalistic. For some,
the concept of multiculturalism may be ideologically distinct from integration, but
in social practice the processes of multiculturalism often do require some
implementation of policies of integration at some level.
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 111

5. Multiculturalism as a Social Issue
The second aspect of discussing multiculturalism is the use of the term to
describe social issues. In this sense, there is common use of ‘multiculturalism’ to
summarise a state of social organisation (a particular social context). That is,
multiculturalism is used in this way to describe a context where there is some level
of perceived (and recognised) diversity. Most often this starts with demographic
data—i.e. numerical descriptors of populations—which are used to demonstrate
that a particular social context has sufficient diversity at some level (particularly
cultural or ethnic diversity) to be classified as ‘multicultural’.
It is important, however, to note that multiculturalism is not merely a matter
of numbers and population percentages. The term multicultural is sometimes
conflated with particular population statistics, with the assumption that there is a
certain proportion or percentage of ‘minorities’ that make a society ‘multicultural’. I
would argue that this is not the case. For example, Scotland has approximately
5 per cent of its population that is considered to be minority ethnic and/or
religious, whilst in England the ratio is 10 per cent. These figures, of course, contrast
with other contexts, such as Malaysia, where the native population (Bumiputra or
Malays) make up just over half of the total population, with the remainder being
non-Malay Malaysians (see the papers by Ahmed and Ibrahim in this issue). In the
case of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (particularly in Dubai and Abu Dhabi), the
ratio is even higher, with figures suggesting that the national Emirati (Arab)
population make up only 10–20 per cent of the overall population, with the
remaining 80–90 per cent non-nationals being resident in the country as
temporary migrant workers (Fox, Mohammed, and Nada 2006). All of these
examples could be considered to be multicultural societies, with visible cultural
and religious diversity. It is a difficult, and probably needless, judgement to make
that a particular country is ‘more’ multicultural than any other. It is probably quite
inevitable that the higher the proportion of minority ethnic population, the greater
the challenges that such diversity may create for the native or majority population
for governance, management and the maintenance of a distinct identity.
Academic Study of Multiculturalism
In contrast to the above two, I argue that there is another important aspect
of multiculturalism that needs to be clearly delineated. That is, the academic study
of multiculturalism. This study is not necessarily ideological, although as Werbner
notes (1997, 263) scholars in this field are often ideologically driven.
The study of multiculturalism—in contrast to any particular ideology or
public discourse of multiculturalism—is an attempt to understand and analyse
various contexts and experiences of diversity. An important basis for this is that
there is no single ‘form’ or experience of multiculturalism, it is not an ‘ideal’ state,
nor does any multicultural context necessarily have a clear end goal. Instead
multiculturalism is about a process of management (and governance) in which
112 MALORY NYE

6. differences are fore-grounded, whilst at the same there is recognition of the
importance of connections and a common area of engagement across differences.
The study of multiculturalism seeks to understand such processes.
In summary, multiculturalism is about changes—the twenty-first century is a
time of rapid and unavoidable change. These changes happen through the forces
and flows of globalisation, through breath-takingly fast technological changes,
and also social and cultural changes coming through the rapid spread of ideas,
through new media (both broadcast and information media). The processes of
multiculturalism both reflect and generate some of these changes. To pursue the
study of multiculturalism is to try to understand how some of these changes
operate within particular contexts of nation-states across the world. Multicultural
studies examine the ways in which change resulting from such globalisation leads
to difference and diversity, relations between different groups, and the ways in
which these differences are perceived and governed.
Multiculturalism, Difference and Engagement
One way to describe multiculturalism is to say that it is a particular way of
thinking and talking about differences in society. The term also describes the ways
in which societies (from local to national policy levels) deal with their differences.
Of particular interest and importance are the ways in which these differences are
politically managed and governed—from the question of immigration procedures
and controls, through to employment and housing opportunities, social justice
and education.
A starting point for such thinking about (and engaging with) such
differences is recognition. A society may be multicultural even if differences are not
recognised, but the recognition (and acknowledgment) of differences can be an
important basis for dealing with and managing such differences. For scholars such
as Taylor (1994) recognition, and in particular the ‘politics of recognition’, is a
central issue for the practical implementation of multicultural policy (for a critique
of this view see Baumann 1999; Guttman 1994; Nye 2001, among others).
However, no matter how complex our understanding of recognition of difference
may be, such recognition is only a starting point, it should not be an end in itself.
The next step involves the gaining of knowledge of differences—which
requires observing differences. This, of course, is a two-way street, indeed all
parties in a multicultural context need to observe and gain knowledge of each
other. This may lead to negative consequences, since observing and learning
about each other may lead to social distance, as ‘we’ may learn that we are
uncomfortable with ‘their’ values and practices. However, this is still necessary, but
again it is not an end in itself.
Beyond observation, there is then the need for toleration. This is a very
substantial term, and does have both positive and negative implications.
Toleration of diversity is of great importance in a multicultural context. Both state
management and individual practice require some level of toleration, once there is
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 113

7. knowledge about the differences. That is, the acceptance of ideas, values and also
practices, which may not be in agreement with the majority culture. This may be
the tolerance of religious values—or religions—which are different from the
majority religion, or of social and cultural practices which are different. Likewise
there must be mutual tolerance, by minorities of the majority. For example, in the
UK there has been some debate among certain Muslim groups of how much it is
possible to be able to tolerate native British values from a Muslim perspective.
Successful multiculturalism and cultural engagement requires tolerance on all
sides—mutual tolerance.
On the other hand, tolerance also has its limitations and is not the end
product of cultural engagement. There are, of course, limitations on any person’s or
group’s tolerance—I may tolerate someone’s behaviour up to a certain point but
no further, there will be a time when I cannot tolerate, and this may apply to
tolerance within a context of cultural diversity.2
This is manifest in the political
rhetoric of right-wing politicians in present day Europe, such of the argument of
the deceased Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, who claimed that everything in a
multicultural society can be tolerated except for intolerance. He used this idea to
target, in particular, Muslim minority groups in Holland, who were then seen to be
excluded from the politics of beneficial multiculturalism. As this shows, toleration
may be a useful concept, but who chooses the limits of tolerance can be
ambiguous. (Who are the ‘we’ who are tolerating, and who are the ‘we’ showing
the tolerance to?) Also, the operation of such tolerance is often applied in such a
way to potentially disadvantage the recipients of tolerance.
Therefore, beyond the toleration of difference there must also be the further
step of engagement across differences. This process is what some writers describe
as ‘critical multiculturalism’ (Baumann 1999; Chicago Cultural Studies Group 1994;
Turner 1993). Multiculturalism requires all involved to participate in a challenging
context of diversity, learning about and tolerating each others’ differences, but also
engaging across the differences. This must always include the principle of both
mutual respect for diversity and also a common ground that unites the different
groups. A successful multicultural society will integrate all these elements, and will
proactively ensure that this process is continually maintained. That is, there must
be engagement between groups and individuals, across the cultures, religions and
values that separate them, and that engagement must be based on knowledge of
each other, tolerance and mutual respect for the differences, along with
acknowledgement of some common ground to which all belong.
Multiculturalism, Nation and Culture
Concepts of national identity, nationalism and citizenship are very often
central to particular debates about how such ‘common ground’ should be
understood. For example, in Western Europe and North America, the challenges of
multiculturalism are often generated, in particular, by citizens of non-native
(minority) cultural/ancestral backgrounds, who may have a different concept
114 MALORY NYE

8. of national identity from that of the majority culture. This may be played out, for
example, by the discussions of one very significant question that has been asked
in various contexts in the UK, that is how can a Muslim and a British (or Scottish)
identity be combined—is one exclusive of the other? These questions are being
asked despite the fact that there are very significant numbers of young British
Muslims, who were born, brought up and educated in Britain and have no
knowledge of living in any other society (and indeed whose parents were also
brought up in Britain).
Indeed, multiculturalism is not the opposite of nationalism, it very often
concerns issues and processes that are embedded in national identity
construction and development. Thus, according to Watson:
. . . multiculturalism is debated in the context of what is alleged to be a national
culture which defines the special character of the nation. The limits to which
multiculturalism can be tolerated are perceived to lie at the boundaries of what
constitutes the core of that national culture . . . (Watson 2001, 44)
This brings us back to the issue of multiculturalism and change.
The migration and settlement of people across boundaries is the product of
change and produces change, at all levels of society. In some cases these changes
are very profound, and if we return to the example of the UAE (and indeed other
Arabian Gulf countries), this has led to a current context of what is currently
described as incredible ‘population imbalance’.3
That is, in the case of the UAE, as
noted above, the national population of Emiratis makes up probably less than one
quarter of the total population of the country. In such a context, this imbalance
has become a source of significant fears for the loss or erosion of a distinct
national identity. In such circumstances the issue of citizenship needs to be
debated within the local context, and will of course be worked out in a very
different way to how citizenship issues have been developed in Western Europe
and North America. But this does not mean the debate about national identity,
diversity and cultural engagement should not take place in this context—indeed
the opposite is the case. The relation between nationals and non-nationals—and
how such relations can be maintained on the successful footing there has been so
far in the Gulf states—is a matter of crucial importance.
In this case, what is probably most important is to distinguish national
identity (and citizenship) from residence (or denizenship). The two work in different
ways, and address some of the political, social and cultural issues that lie at the
heart of concerns about ‘population imbalance’. To avoid national Emiratis
becoming ‘Red Indians in their own country’ (i.e. an indigenous group who are not
only numerically but also socially and politically overwhelmed by the non-native
majority population), the concept of naturalisation of (and granting of citizenship
to) the large guest worker population is politically unacceptable within the UAE.
There are other similar contexts in which the issues of multiculturalism go beyond
specifically the issue of citizens, as for example, in the case of multinational entities
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 115

9. such as the European Union, where citizenship rights in any member country give
residence rights within the EU.
The distinction between citizenship and denizenship is primarily one of
rights. Using the work of Tomas Hammar (1994), Atikcan (2006) argues that the
term denizens should be used to describe a group whose members are no longer
‘regular foreign citizens’ but are also ‘not naturalised citizens of the host state’, and
so are ‘foreign citizens with a legal and permanent resident status in the host state’
(Atikcan 2006, 7). Therefore:
Denizens enjoy almost full social, economic and civil citizenship rights whereas
they only have limited access to political rights. With the exception of a few
states that granted denizens voting rights in local elections, they are excluded
from democratic participation and processes. (Atikcan 2006, 7)
The rights and status granted by particular nation-states to such denizens will
of course vary considerably according to context, and will to a large extent depend
on the dynamics of the local and national context and experiences of the processes
of multiculturalism. It is certainly the case that there are many major urban centres
where this is a predominant issue of multiculturalism. That is, there are significant
flows of transnational migrants, some of whom are temporarily resident, a number
may have become citizens of the country in which they have settled, whilst others
may have a settled status but have not taken up (or been offered) full citizenship.
Within such contexts, concepts of nationality and citizenship become more
complicated, and hence the concept of denizenship takes on a significance to
establish a common sense of shared residence and common ground.
Challenges of Multiculturalism
Bringing these issues together, some of the common features and
characteristics of multicultural contexts can be summarised as follows:
They are Specific
Multiculturalism is a process, and such processes are always contextual to
particular places and cultural experiences. Thus, as already noted, we have to
recognise that the experiences of multiculturalism in Britain are unique to that
country, and are different from multiculturalism in other countries, such as
Canada, Australia, Malaysia or the UAE. This means that our analysis and
understanding of multiculturalism in each of these contexts must also be
contextual, and we should not try to understand one within the framework of the
other. The distribution and mix of population in each country is specific, as of
course are migration histories, and the histories of relations between groups
within the multicultural context. It is of course very important to relate the
particular experiences of multiculturalism to the ways in which issues of diversity
116 MALORY NYE

10. and change are perceived within the national context of the society. In short, no
single model of multiculturalism, for example, from a European or American
context, will be applicable within the context of an Arabian Gulf state or in
Southeast Asia.
They are Temporary and Liable to Change
As multiculturalism is processual, it is very important to recognise that
relations between groups and people within any multicultural context are subject
to change and development. This might work either positively or negatively—a
context of peaceful and respectful relationships between different groups might
not last indefinitely, and examples such as the Balkans (the former Yugoslavia) in
the 1990s and Sri Lanka over the past few decades give stark examples of how
peaceful co-existence may be subject to manipulation and violent disruption. This
returns us again to the issue of state management and governance of difference—
what works for the present generation may not work so well in 10, 20 or 30 years
time, and good government in a multicultural society requires looking ahead to
future developments.
They have Tensions Built into Them
No society today is homogeneous, and so all societies in the contemporary
globalised world have factors of diversity and difference. Such differences are not
only cultural or religious differences, there are many other factors of social
diversity, which may equally impact. Also cultural and religious diversity very often
overlaps with other social differences—particularly class and political differences.
As I have argued, these differences need to be managed effectively, and in
particular the respect for diversity needs to be combined with the creation and
development of a sense of common ground across the differences. Otherwise the
potential tensions of diversity can become serious, particularly within the context
of public debates and perceptions. Difference can become politicised in many
different ways—particularly at times of rapid social change or economic or
political crisis. History shows us many examples of minority ethnic groups
becoming stigmatised and ‘blamed’ by the majority society for social problems
(such as crime, unemployment or social unrest).
They are not always Peaceful and ‘Disruptions’ are Sometimes
Unavoidable
Sometimes the above two issues can lead to more than tension, and cultural
diversity can lead to cultural conflict within a society, particularly in a context
where such diversity also reflects other differences of power, income, wealth,
education and access to resources (Hesse 2000). For some this ‘balkanisation’ (as
seen literally in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s) is seen as a ‘failure of
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 117

11. multiculturalism’. I would not argue that we should see disruption and violence in
these terms, it is not a ‘failure of multiculturalism’ but rather is a failure to develop
the context of multiculturalism effectively—and this may be because the state (or
parts of the state) do not wish to do so, and would prefer conflict rather than
peaceful management of difference. Multiculturalism is not necessarily about
preventing such conflict, but rather one of the challenges of multiculturalism is to
ensure that any intercultural conflict within society is manageable, and at the
same time ensures the application of social justice and protection to all parts of
the society.
All such Contexts Need to be Carefully Managed
This returns to the significant point, that diversity needs to be managed at
all levels of society, and good multiculturalism is not only about good relations
between communities of different backgrounds, but also active governance of
difference by the state and its agents. This requires clear policies of integration
and the construction of a sense of common ground across differences, along with
the promotion of toleration and engagement between communities. It needs the
implementation of policy that addresses differences—to prevent any section of
society considering itself as ‘targeted’ or otherwise to prevent resentment against
one group by another. Practical policy to address this will include legislation that
addresses prejudice, discrimination and racism. But education also has an
extremely significant role to play in the way in which understanding of, toleration
for and engagement with diversity and other groups are developed across the
national context.
Multiculturalism in Practice
In conclusion, perhaps the most important points to stress are that
multiculturalism is both a process and it is unavoidable in the contemporary
world. Multiculturalism is not an optional extra, it is not something that a society
can choose to have or avoid. For any country without closed borders (and few
nations can afford to close themselves from the forces of globalisation) then
multiculturalism is a fact of today—it is present within the society. What is more
important is how the people of a particular locality—including those who exercise
governance over them—choose to respond to the cultural and religious diversity
that results from the flows of people.
The management and governance of multiculturalism is necessary, to
ensure that there is widespread and effective respect for diversity, whilst at the
same time there is an element of cohesion and shared identity—a common
ground upon which the society and nation works as more than a collection of
diversities. In particular, the tensions of diversity must be addressed to prevent the
centrifugal forces of difference pulling too strongly. Many of the contemporary
debates, particularly in Western Europe and North America on how such a
118 MALORY NYE

12. common ground can be found and developed have explored issues such as
language, identity, dress code and values. There is no simple or straightforward
answer to where is the right place to find common ground within any particular
society. Clearly education is a very significant place for the development of such
common ground, and the implementation of governance and state management
requires an education system that positively contributes to this—across all sectors
of society.
The development of a policy of effective multiculturalism also must always
be pursued within the context of national identity, it is part of the development of
a national identity and not a challenge to it. Within the highly mobile context of
global labour flows, the traditional issue of citizenship is nowadays sometimes not
much more than a matter of passports and travel documentation (and access to
certain state funded privileges) for many transnational communities and workers.
In nations where such migrant workers make up a significant proportion of the
population (as temporary, semi-permanent and permanent residents), then this
issue of citizenship is of far less importance than the issue of denizenship—that is
the significance of a shared identity founded on common locality and common
residence.
It is certain that the issues of multiculturalism will become more urgent and
more challenging as the twenty-first century progresses. The most economically
successful nation-states are often the ones who are facing—and are likely to
face—the greatest challenges of multiculturalism over the next decades. For
effective governance of these nations and the people contained within them—to
ensure that the benefits of diversity are felt rather than the tensions and
conflicts—there needs to be greater engagement with and understanding of the
issues behind these changes. What we are seeing at present is not the ‘death of
multiculturalism’, but rather the birth of the academic discipline of ‘multicultural
studies’, as a response to the central role that the processes of multiculturalism will
have in the coming century.
The Challenges of Multiculturalism: This Special Issue
This collection of papers originates from a symposium held at Al-Maktoum
Institute in Dundee on 20 April 2006, organised by the Centre for Research on
Multiculturalism and Islam and Muslims in Scotland, on the theme ‘The Challenges
of Multiculturalism’. The aim of the symposium was to bring together international
practitioners, policy makers and academics in the field of multiculturalism to
inspect the questions raised by the challenges of multicultural societies in a
comparative perspective. In her opening speech to the conference, Margaret
Curran MSP, the then Scottish Executive Minister for Parliamentary Business,
highlighted that the ‘issues embedded in the discussion have been around for a
very long time and there has been activity around these issues over many years . . .
Against the background of violence and discord, frustration and fear, that are
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 119

13. overcrowding the debate [in the UK], it is vitally important that we seize all
opportunities to enable proper analysis and informed discussion to take place’.
There were a total of 15 papers presented in the symposium, on a range of
themes related to the challenges of multiculturalism, including case studies from
Scotland, Northern Ireland, France, Russia, Malaysia and the UAE, of the Catholic
church and multiculturalism, and also an examination of the Muslim concept of
Islamicjerusalem as a model for multiculturalism (Abu-Munshar 2006). The current
issue is a selection from these papers, as a reflection of some of the discussions
from that day—although also included is a short paper by Rozita Ibrahim, which
was not included in the conference programme, but which was included because
of its interesting discussion of education in Malaysia.
The main aim of this issue is to encourage further discussion on this issue of
multiculturalism, and in particular to provide some extension of the discussion
into areas not often addressed in the contemporary literature. In particular, the
comparative analysis of multicultural contexts does not usually include ‘non-
Western’ (non-European) perspectives. Behind this appears to be an assumption
that either examples of multiculturalism in the non-Western world are not so
relevant to contemporary debates, or otherwise that the models and experiences
of multiculturalism in Europe, North America and Australia can be readily
transposed into other cultural situations.
One purpose of this collection is to suggest that although there should of
course be further discussion of multiculturalism in contexts beyond Europe and
the west, there must also be recognition of the contextuality of all experiences of
multiculturalism. Therefore, the social and political models that are being
developed in countries such as Malaysia will need to be analysed in the context of
those countries, and the models that are commonly debated in the west may not
necessarily work in the ways we expect them to. For a wider understanding of
multiculturalism in the contemporary world, there needs to be further research of
the implementation of models and processes of multiculturalism in such contexts.
It was with such issues in mind, that this introductory paper was revised for
presentation at a second conference, in April 2007, in Abu Dhabi on
‘Multiculturalism and Cultural Engagement: mapping an agenda for the twenty-
first century’, jointly organised by the Al-Maktoum Institute and Zayed House,
UAE. The conference was the first of its kind in the UAE to examine in depth the
issue of multiculturalism and in particular the contexts of diversity within Dubai
and Abu Dhabi.
The current papers in this volume cover a number of themes within the
issue of multiculturalism, with a balance between theoretical discussions of the
idea of multiculturalisms alongside particular case examples.
The first paper, by Chris Allen, takes its lead from the proposed ‘death’ of
multiculturalism, as envisaged by a number of writers and social commentators, in
particular the former British politician Norman Lamont. Allen draws out and
examines some of the discourses involved in such positions, arguing that in the UK
there is a common link between perceived ‘failures’ of multicultural policy and the
120 MALORY NYE

14. presence of a substantial Muslim minority population. This highlights one key
issue that resurfaces in many of the papers in this issue, which is the relationship
between contemporary debates and understandings of multicultural societies and
the presence of significant Muslim populations in many of the European and
North American societies at the heart of these debates. It is not within the scope of
this issue to resolve whether or not there is compatibility between Islam and
Muslims and contemporary understandings of the concept of multiculturalism.
Indeed, such a debate is in itself dependent on whose interpretations of Islam and
Muslim society are being considered. But there can be no doubt that most
discussions of multiculturalism in the post 9/11 twenty-first century context are
strongly reliant on questions about the place and practice of Muslims at the local
and global level.
From this there is of course much need to ask questions about how
multiculturalism may be understood to work in a predominantly Muslim majority
context, such as Malaysia. The following two papers in this issue examine this in
detail. The first of these, by Zaid Ahmed of Universiti Putra Malaysia examines the
development of multicultural Malaysia, highlighting the post-independence
constitutional settlement that gave citizenship to all residents of the postcolonial
state—including the communities that developed out of colonial economic
migration flows, but at the same time guaranteed the particular position of the
native Malaysians, the Bumiputra, who are Muslims. Taking these issues into the
field of education, Rozita Ibrahim demonstrates that this may often be a contested
field—with significant Malaysian minority groups (such as Chinese Malaysians)
often exercising considerable influence on the development of educational policy.
However, in the first half century of independence, the policy has so far been
successful in developing a common national Malaysian identity and relative inter-
communal harmony.
The final two papers look at rather more theoretical issues, although both
are again based on some interesting contexts. Victoria Montgomery explores the
issue of minority rights, particularly associated with Will Kymlika, showing both the
need for special protection of minority groups whilst at the same time the pitfalls
of implementing policies giving such protections. Using examples—some from
the context of Northern Ireland, where community issues usually are discussed
within simplistic binary sectarian terms (‘Protestants’ versus ‘Catholics’, ‘Ulster’
versus ‘Irish’)—she also again brings in the ways in which Muslims (in Northern
Ireland and elsewhere in the UK) are being used to define how such rights could
and could not be implemented.
The final paper, by Mandy McKerl, re-states the question posed by Susan
Okin, ‘Is multiculturalism bad for women?’. For McKerl this is by no means a simple
question, and again she eschews a simple binarism of pitting multiculturalism
‘against’ feminism. One issue often highlighted in debates on multiculturalism—
and indeed very often directed towards Muslim minorities in the west, is the issue
of gender relations and in particular the use and (seeming) justification of use of
violence by (Muslim) men against (Muslim) women. McKerl’s reflections suggest
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 121

15. that these debates are conducted within a process of ‘othering’ by non-Muslim
majorities, which distances—and avoids the social policy issues of—the
prevalence of men’s domestic violence and abuse within the majority populations
as well as the minorities. Within this context, multiculturalism becomes a place of
intersection of a number of social justice issues, rather than a simple ideology
pitted in contrast to feminism.
Together I hope that these papers may open up new spaces and questions
for research, as well as continuing a debate which has been ongoing for nearly two
decades. In particular the focus on issues relating to Islam and Muslims—in both
minority and majority contexts—is intended to reflect the current questions of the
debate about multiculturalism at both the academic and the popular level. As
mentioned earlier in this paper, the field of multicultural studies is only just
emerging.
NOTES
1. See, for example, Philips (2004), Phillips (2006) and West (2005). For a very recent
argument against the ‘death’ of multiculturalism, see Modood (2007).
2. For an extensive criticism of the concept of tolerance, see Hage (2000).
3. The issue of multiculturalism and the attitudes of both nationals and non-nationals
towards diversity in the UAE is currently being researched by two doctoral research
students at Al-Maktoum Institute in Dundee: Asma Ali Obaid Shahdoor
(multiculturalism in Dubai) and Samia Al-Shamisi (Emirati attitudes to multi-
culturalism in the UAE).
REFERENCES
ABU-MUNSHAR, M. 2006. Islamicjerusalem: a model for multiculturalism. American Journal
of Islamic Social Sciences 23 (4) (Fall): 63–87.
ATIKCAN, E. O. 2006. ‘Citizenship or denizenship: the treatment of third country nationals
in the European Union’. Sussex European Institute, SEI Working Paper no 85.
Available from www.sussex.ac.uk/sei/1-4-10-1.html; INTERNET.
BAUMANN, G. 1999. The multicultural riddle. London: Routledge.
CHICAGO CULTURAL STUDIES GROUP (CCSG). 1994. Critical multiculturalism. In Multi-
culturalism: a critical reader, edited by D. T. Goldberg. Oxford: Blackwell.
EL-AWAISI, A.-F., and M. NYE. 2006. Time for change: report on the future of the study of Islam
and Muslims in universities and colleges in multicultural Britain. Dundee:
Al-Maktoum Institute Academic Press.
FOX, J., A.-M. MOHAMMED, and M.-S. NADA. 2006. Globalization and the Gulf. London:
Routledge.
GUTTMAN, A., ed. 1994. Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. New edition.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
HAGE, G. 2000. White Nation. New York: Routledge.
122 MALORY NYE

16. HALL, S. 2000. Conclusion: the multi-cultural question. In Un/settled multiculturalism,
edited by B. Hesse. London: Zed Books.
HAMMAR, T. 1994. Democracy and the national state: aliens, denizens and citizens in a
world of international migration. Aldershot: Avebury.
HESSE, B., ed. 2000. Un/settled multiculturalisms: diasporas, entanglements, transruptions.
London: Zed Books.
MODOOD, T. 2007. Multiculturalism. Oxford: Polity.
NYE, M. 2001. Multiculturalism and minority religions in Britain: Krishna consciousness,
religious freedom, and the politics of location. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
PHILLIPS, M. 2006. Londonistan: how Britain is creating a terror state within. London:
Gibson Square Books.
PHILLIPS, T. 2004. I want an integrated society with a difference: interview by
Tom Walden. The Times (3 April 2004): 9.
SAMAD, Y. 1997. The plural guises of multiculturalism: conceptualising a fragmented
paradigm. In The politics of multiculturalism in the New Europe: racism, identity
and community, edited by T. Modood, and P. Werbner. London: Zed Books.
TAYLOR, C. 1994. The politics of recognition, Multiculturalism: examining the politics of
recognition, edited by A. Guttman. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TURNER, T. 1993. Anthropology and multiculturalism: what is anthropology that
multiculturalists should be mindful of it? Cultural Anthropology 8 (4): 411–29.
WATSON, C. 2001. Multiculturalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
WERBNER, P. 1997. Afterword: writing multiculturalism and politics in the New Europe.
In The politics of multiculturalism in the New Europe: racism, identity and
community, edited by T. Modood, and P. Werbner. London: Zed Books.
WEST, P. 2005. The poverty of multiculturalism. Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil
Society.
Professor Malory Nye (author to whom correspondence should be addressed),
Al-Maktoum Institute, 124 Blackness Road, Dundee DD1 5PE, UK.
E-mail: m.nye@almi.abdn.ac.uk
THE CHALLENGES OF MULTICULTURALISM 123