Page 179 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Citizenship 165

according to incompatible cultural norms (Barker, 1981 ). In practice,
“ new racism ” legitimates violence against members of racialized groups
who do not belong to the majority nation and may lead to calls for their
repatriation – a genuine, if impracticable, possibility where minorities are
not citizens. Although assimilationism differs from “ new racism ” by
calling for tolerance on the part of the white majority, it mirrors it by
supposing that it is only insofar as members of ethnic minority groups
are few in number and indistinguishable from the white majority that they
can be tolerated. Like “ new racism, ” assimilationism makes racialized
minorities the “ problem ” in race relations, not racism.

Multiculturalism, group - differentiated rights, and
“ new assimilationism ”
From the 1970s, increasing criticisms of assimilationism, whether “ melting
pot ” or “ salad bowl, ” led to adoption of multiculturalism as an ideal in
many countries. It began in Canada and spread from there to the US,
Australia, and New Zealand and also to some Northern European coun-
tries like Britain, Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland. At the

turn of the twenty - first century, however, multiculturalism itself is under
serious strain as an ideal model for the integration of recent migrants into
mainstream society. Criticisms of multiculturalism have grown, especially
following the terrorist activities of Muslim fundamentalists since 9/11
because it is seen as fostering segregation rather than the integration of
all citizens into civic culture, as working against social solidarity, and as
facilitating the oppression of women. As a result, there is now a return
of arguments for assimilationism, but this time for a “ new assimiliation-
ism ” which encourages respect for diversity as well as for common values
and national solidarity.
As a prominent advocate of multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka has

argued that it is the only justifiable liberal policy. This is important since
citizenship rights in the West are based on the liberal tradition. It is also
surprising since liberals have generally held that the public sphere, includ-
ing state institutions and the law, should be value - neutral and that cultural
identity should be relevant only in the private sphere. However, the pres-
ence of cultural minorities who come from signifi cantly different back-
grounds to those of the majority makes it obvious the public sphere is not
neutral: legal rights premised on the individual, assumptions concerning
children ’ s education, the role of the family in society, the language that
is used in public institutions, the celebration of public holidays, and so
on are all culturally specifi c. In fact, it is not possible to be neutral in