Page 189 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Citizenship 175

Phillips ’ s arguments are couched as a defense of multiculturalism,
but in shifting the emphasis from group rights to individual rights, she
brings it very close to what is sometimes called “ new assimilationism ”
(Brubaker, 2002 ). In dissolving the “ groupness ” of cultures, in order

to emphasize diversity and fluidity, she has changed what “ multicultural-
ism ” stood for in Kymlicka ’ s version of group - differentiated rights.
However, “ new assimilationism ” is not the assimilationism of the “ melting
pot. ” What is emphasized above all is belonging to a civic nation of
liberal rights and obligations. It is solidarity and belonging across
all groups that critics of multiculturalism believe should be fostered
(Modood, 2007 : 146 – 54). In Britain, for example, the government has
introduced citizenship ceremonies for residents who become naturalized,
in order to symbolize pride in joining the British nation, not just the
acquisition of citizenship. Citizenship should be experienced as more
than simply an abstract bundle of rights that are provided by the state. It
should be felt as the expression of common values, to which everyone
feels commitment and loyalty, not just acceptance and far less active
resistance. This need not mean that immigrants give up their own sense
of cultural belonging. Immigrants must become “ like ” the majority only
to a degree and over time, and only to the extent that their values
and practices are incompatible with mainstream values (Brubaker,
2002 ; Joppke, 2004 ; Kivisto, 2005 ). In this sense, the “ new assimilation-
ism ” is a form of “ hyphenation ” : there may be a variety of ways of
belonging to the nation, as long as they are not in tension with its core
commitments.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between Phillips ’ s argument for mul-
ticulturalism “ without culture, ” and that of the “ new assimilationists. ”
Phillips argues that it is important to retain multiculturalism as an ideal,
while “ new assimilationists ” see that ideal as one of the main reasons for
the crisis of civic nationalism. In a climate in which “ cultural difference ”
is under attack, it is important to remember its importance to an egalitar-
ian society. If, as we noted earlier, “ new racism ” fi nds cultural difference
problematic, a commitment to multiculturalism is a clear demonstration
of its value. To some extent, as Phillips notes, the term “ cosmopolitan ”
may now be replacing multiculturalism in this respect, as in thinking of
particular cities as “ cosmopolitan, ” for example. “ Cosmopolitan ” does
not, however, carry the same implications in terms of public policy.
Phillips ’ s arguments also give far more attention to individual rights com-
pared to “ new assimilationists, ” who are concerned, above all, with social
cohesion. In focusing on rights, it is easier to avoid the slippage between