From ‘Multiculturalism’ to ‘Interculturalism’ – A commentary on the Impact of De-racing and De-classing the Debate*

by Harshad Keval (Canterbury Christ Church University)

Abstract Recent discourses surrounding the so-called death or decline of multiculturalism are characterised by a movement towards notions and practices of ‘Interculturality’, ‘Interculturalism’ and what have been called ‘new frameworks’ for diversity and race. The contemporary socio-cultural landscape is characterised by the persistence of racism, both institutionally and interactionally embedded, which is increasingly re-generated onthe political European stage. In this paper I argue that more vigilance may be required before a wholesale acceptance of these ‘new frameworks’ is mobilised. The rise of Interculturalism in un-nuanced forms is underwritten by parallel processes of anti-multiculturalism, cultural racism, and the demise of the spaces within which the class-race dialectic can be articulated. Finally, the policy gaze has both racialised the debate on cultural difference using the focus on particular ‘different’ groups, and deemed other black and minority ethnic groups as officially less troublesome. I argue that this economically and politically expedient rendition of the sociocultural landscape leads to a distorted analysis of differential subjugation. In an apparently ‘post-race’ era of diversity, racialised experiences need to be articulated more richly and with more political weight than interculturalism may currently facilitate. Keywords: multiculturalism, interculturalism, race, intersectionality

‘Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multicultural crap. Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones...!’ Aidan Burley, (UK Conservative MP) ‘To put it bluntly, most of us prefer our own kind’. David Goodhart (Author) Introduction Aidan Burley’s remarks broadcast through Twit- announced by political leaders such as David ter during the 2012 Olympiad (Watt 2012) focus Cameron (BBC News Online 2011) and Angela our attention on a number of issues incon- Merkel (BBC News Online 2010). Contemporary temporary society, with the games as the back- debates offer a variety of analyses and formula- drop against which nationalist and conserva- tions about citizenship, identity, belonging and tive political ideology is highlighted. This isset difference. How the idea of difference is trans- against the ‘obituary’ of ‘multiculturalism’ as lated into both everyday encounters as well as institutional experience in society is a much debated spectacle. Often it reveals overt outright * I would like to thank anonymous referees and the editor for their helpful comments on earlier versions rejections of ‘race’, ‘racism’, and ethnicity based of this paper. divides, as well as loudly indicating that well-

New Diversities Vol. 16, No. 2, 2014 ISSN ISSN-Print 2199-8108 ▪ ISSN-Internet 2199-8116 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

worn tropes of racialised identity are never too justified in the face of new modes of neo-liber- far away from rhetoric and practice, as exempli- alised global capital and labour exchange but fied in the ‘raciological meanings’ of Cameron’s remain precariously perched on problematic 2011 speech (Gilroy 2012). The re-emergence of race and ethnicity notions. cultural racism framed as the politics of citizen- Secondly, as the shift towards political and ship, rights and ‘reasonable prejudice’ of some policy interculturalism tilts towards citizenship far right groups, such as the English Defence and universalist values oriented discourse, so League, has become a particularly problematic the debate moves to a more fixed, non-intersec- trope used in tandem by political parties such as tional analysis of difference. I argue that, whilst United Kingdom Independence Party. Since the not completely absent from the debate, inter- English northern disturbances in early 2001, then sectional analyses which utilise the complexity later in the same year, the terrorist attacks that of class, race and gender (to name but three constitute the ‘9/11’ event, the nature of prac- of many) have gradually been marginalised in tical, political and symbolic processing of differ- intercultural framed work despite academic and ences – religious, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and activist attempts. geo-political – have been the focus of media and Thirdly, the paper attempts to identify the government surveillance. Indeed, the constant parallel yet thus far invisible process of some focus on ‘Muslims’ in national policy and media minority groups becoming more visible and is the topic of much academic debate, especially ‘problematised’, while others seemingly perform as related to perceived threats to ‘security’ – the a disappearing act, deemed ‘correctly’ or ‘safely’ securitisation of minority populations, and the integrated. This contrasts with other groups con- securitisation of race policy (Fekete 2004, 2011). structed as ‘troublesome’ or examples of ‘poor’ In this paper, I do not intend to provide an integration. This conspicuous absence is high- exhaustive account of neither the rise of Islamo- lighted as having an impact on the landscape of phobia, nor reproduce the many detailed discus- multi-cultural negotiation, and forms an inte- sions of both multiculturalism and intercultural- gral strand of the history of race politics. Recent ism. Rather, I intend to contextualise the current negative, ideological constructions of Muslims UK policy announcements and ‘citizenship’ based in the UK (and Europe), as well as much needed formulations of difference against the backdrop reactions from academics intending to contest of a de-racing argument. By this, I mean that these negative constructions may have left their critiques of multiculturalism have moved away mark on the multicultural landscape in the form from the existence of the acknowledgment of of homegenising and neglecting the existence of enduring racialised experiences, towards ‘new’ problems in these other, ‘other’ communities. ideas about diversity. These focuses for the paper are brought together This paper aims to first briefly highlight some in the service of raising some questions around salient critiques of ‘new’ frameworks of diversity the continued death-knell of multiculturalism, such as Interculturalism, which attempt to deal the wholesale and unquestioned acceptance of with the inevitability of cultural diversity (Parekh interculturalism as a framework for diversity, and 2000a) against the scenery painted above. I will the related co-opting and officialised acceptance not provide a blow by blow account of the debate, of some forms of cultural difference rather than but rather utilise the literature to frame my main others. critique. Several aspects of Interculturalism will be highlighted as items specifically moving away Situating the Critiques of Multiculturalism from what are known as intersectional analyses, As formulations about the nature of belonging and the resultant ‘de-classing’ and ‘de-racing’ and the negotiation of ‘multiple identities’ circu- tendency. Such moves are seen as expediently late within debates, highly politicised philosophi-

126 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

cal moves regarding duties, rights and responsi- alised and vague notion that interculturalism bilities render this arena ever more complex. In may provide a platform for understanding diver- this section, I want to outline interrelated areas sity whilst maintaining a framework of universal of the critique of multiculturalism, development values. So, the critiques of multiculturalism pre- of community cohesion, and some of the prob- date the current panic, and yet, as a variety of lems with these entities. writers have argued (Meer and Modood 2012b; The various attacks on multiculturalism are Kymlicka 2012; Werbner 2012; Lentin and Titley a feature of contemporary debates and neither 2011), there appears to be an oversimplification new nor surprising, given the force of politically of both multiculturalism and interculturalism, expedient shifts to the right. The critiques have as well as an avoidance to explore fundamental been gaining momentum in recent years, but can similarities. Other writers have also pointed out be traced back to the reaction to the urban dis- that situating the two approaches in compet- orders in the UK cities of Bradford and Oldham, ing positions is neither helpful nor conceptually in 2001 and the 9/11 and 7/7 bombings in New accurate since there are different versions of York and London. The complex, prevailing and both approaches (Gomarasca 2013). I would like, contested idea of ‘integration’, as Rattansi (2011) therefore, to contextualise what Werbner has surmises was already on the wane, resulting in called the ‘failure-of-multiculturalism’ discourse questions about who is to be integrated into (2012: 201). The ideological move away from what, and how this might be effected in egalitar- constructing groups as bounded entities (a typi- ian and fair terms. The multidimensional nature cally simplistic caricature of multiculture) to a of ‘integration’, having spatial, structural and cul- more ‘integrationist’ model of sociality was over- tural levels to contend with resulted in numerous taken by the ‘community cohesion’ approach, ‘warnings’ and reports, for example those com- itself the result of a number of reports written in missioned by the UK Home Office (Cantle 2001). the wake of the urban disorders (Denham 2001; The perceived result of multicultural policies Cantle 2001). The reports proposed the notion stemming back to the 1980s was identified as of ‘community cohesion’ as a way of building the lessening of integration between groups of bridges between groups who were said to be collective identities. The assumption underlying “sleep walking into segregation…” and living “par- this unravelling of cohesion was that culturally allel live” (Philips 2005). Trevor Philips’s infamous, bounded groups would remain only within the often cited and selectively employed observa- social and psychological confines of their own tion of black, minority and white community group, and the reduced integration would cause interactions in the UK under so-called ‘multicul- more problems in society. The public disorders turalism’ both fuelled pre-existing fears (worked in Northern cities were seen as evidence of this on partly by discourse surrounding the northern new problematic (Hussain and Bagguley 2005). disorders of 2001) and gave rise to new, more However, the critique of multiculturalism as powerful, and intuitively attractive discourses an approach appears a while before the cur- of difference. The healing solution was said, cer- rent identity laden ‘moral panics’ that we see in tainly by adherents and proponents of commu- the media and various policy formulations. As nity cohesion, to be a common ground on which Kymlicka (2012) reminds us, in 2008, the Council to unite social and cultural futures. As Rattansi for Europe generated and discussed the White (2011) has argued, this form of bridge building Paper on ‘Intercultural Dialogue’ in which the pre- rests on three main drivers – communitarianism, ferred model for dealing with the so-called fail- Putnam’s theoretical extension of ‘social capital’, ures of post-war multicultural segregation would and the experiences of the white working classes. be ‘interculturalism’. The focus in the White Paper The problems with these cohesion based under- is, as Kymlicka emphatically indicates the gener- pinnings have been discussed in more detail else-

127 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

where (e.g. Crowley and Hickman 2008; Philips racial difference and equality were filled in each 2006; Amin 2002). These involve the complex era by these tensions; on the one hand, with and dynamic notion of ‘community’ being reified resistance and activist movements, and on the and rendered static; social capital mobilised as other, with politically motivated discourse from a subtle form of recycling culturalist arguments the right. Interculturalism, therefore, appears to about prescriptive norms of integration; and offer some form of relief to the political indiges- the homogenised and simplified construction tion caused by unwanted, problematic ‘others’, of the white working class experience, placed certainly re-framing the problem of minority- in contrast to the experiences of other minority majority culture. communities. In a similar vein, Battercharya’s cri- The ubiquity of ‘community cohesion’ as state tique contests the use of ethnicity ‘as the source policy is evidenced in both the organisations of antagonisms and differences that must be charged with investigating public disorders in overcome’, and instead suggests that ‘ethnicity is Northern cities as well as the various government itself multiple and changing and is unlikely to be backed ‘cohesion’ initiatives. The generalised a basis for articulating shared values’ (2009: 4). ‘trickle down’ idea of culturalised capital-based The European idea of ‘Interculturalism’ is deficit amongst affected communities appears to viewed as a remedy for some of the prob- have facilitated a transition to ‘new frameworks lems which previous approaches seemed to be for race and diversity’ (Cantle 2008) and the plagued by (James 2009). Before multiculturalism ‘new era of cohesion and diversity’ (Cantle 2012). was embraced in the UK (noting the discursive Discussions around Interculturalism (Cantle 2001, and multiple constructions of this practice), the 2012; Modood and Meer 2008; Rattansi 2011; dominant counter hegemonic political resistance James 2008, 2009), while relatively young in the was driven by the machinery of ‘anti-racisms’, UK, have traditionally had a variety of purchases much of it mobilised by organisations such as in many countries, including Canada and Aus- the Institute of Race Relations and various grass tralia in varying guises, and employing differing roots organisations (Farrar 2004). This particular social and psychological emphases. Certainly a mode of resistance through representing and key example of the national policy utilisation of amplifying the voices of oppressed minorities an intercultural framework can be found in Que- was underwritten by the tacit identity agreement bec’s approach to diversity situated in contrast to which combined the experiences of all racial and Canada’s federal multicultural approach (Meer ethnic minorities. This political and practical 2014). The sheer range and diversity of ideas unity, while not unproblematic (Modood 1994), within the broad label ‘interculturalism’ prohib- served as a basis for both grass roots organisa- its an extensive discussion here, but I will firstly tion of resistance, as well as representation in select some defining features and then move local and national politics (see Virdee 2010). As onto discussing their implications. socio-economic and political landscapes shifted, In providing an extensive critical discus- so did official reactions to the ‘diversity issue’. sion of where interculturalism and multicul- The caricatured identity-politics of ‘crude mul- turalism overlap and differ, Meer and Modood ticulturalism’, as it has been termed, came to (2012a; 2012b) initiate a welcome appraisal of replace the class-race conscious alliances with the debate. I will draw on Meer and Modood’s separate group identity movements (Lentin (2012a; 2012b) comparisons between the two 2008). This movement should not be understood approaches, since they have clearly defined the as linear and mutually exclusive segmentation, relevant parameters for engagement in this area. and is rather a dialectically tensioned position, They outline four main issues in relation to this as discussed by Farrar (2004). The spaces left comparison that need tackling, as follows: com- behind by ideologies and conceptualisations of munication and dialogue as a defining feature

128 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

of intercultulrality as opposed to multicultural- human sociality is integral. In addition, if notions ism; ‘less groupist and culture bound’, therefore of identity are to be underlined by a complex more interactive; reinforces a stronger sense of interplay of individual rights, responsibilities and national identity through cohesion; and, finally, communitarian agendas, then people should also that interculturalism is more likely to prevent equally be given the opportunity to opt out of illiberal practices within cultures. The authors go intercultural dialogue. James’s (2009) summary on in a number of publications to systematically is a considered discussion of the pitfalls associ- tackle these issues. I will not rehearse the intrica- ated with creating policy in relation to culture, cies of Meer and Modood’s exposition but will citizenship and collective egalitarian cooperation draw upon it to make my central points. and that intercultural work of any kind needs to be premised on notions of identity, culture and Defining Interculturalism difference which are not racialised. A key feature of interculturalism, as defined by One of the key functions of interculturalism James, is ‘…its sense of openness, dialogue and is communicative and dialogic nature of its pro- interaction’ (2008: 2). As critics of multicultural- gramme, but the dialogic and cultural exchange ism allege that it has stunted interactive diversity, propensities of multiculturalism have been interculturalism is framed as a way to reinstate staunchly defended by writers, such as Meer and the fluidity of culture. Indeed, a prominent fea- Modood (2012a; 2012b). The way in which mul- ture of the move-on from the so-called corpse ticulturalism has made dialogue and communica- of multiculturalism towards interculturalism is tion central to its concerns seems to have been the absorption of sociological and social psycho- ignored, and replaced by a caricature of multicul- logical ideas. For James, there is something to be turalism as a static and separatist dividing force. gained in using social psychological work in reduc- As Parekh (2000b) asserted, there is an inherent ing prejudice through contact (the “contact the- value in different cultures coming across each sis”), the principal idea being that contact, in var- other and experiencing both uncertainty as well ious forms between different people and groups as learning to identify those aspects of their cul- will, in ‘optimal’ circumstances, reduce prejudice tures which are different and importantlyvalued and negative stereotypes (Hewstone et al. 2007). differentially. This fundamental aspect of mul- James (2008) summarises a number of important ticulturalism speaks to the embedded compo- perspectives, including Parekh’s (2000b) ­inter nents of dialogue and communication, as well active multiculturalism, Gilroy’s (2004) planetary as the crucial aspects of what Taylor identified humanism in a cosmopolitanised world, Brah’s as respect and dignity (Taylor 1994). Similarly, as work (1996) on diaspora and space and Sen’s Gomarasca (2013) has pointed out dialogue is (2006) wide ranging and multidisciplinary work not the sole character of interculturality, but is within human rights and global conflict arenas. part of every culture. The presence of intercul- James identifies Sen’s singular toxicity towards tural dialogue playing a role in ‘creative spaces’ cultural theorists for being the drivers of a move- may not be quite enough to mitigate the ever ment which ultimately extract real people, living persistent and hugely damaging issues of institu- real lives from their social action, and place them tional and individual racism. in preconceived categories of civilisation, thus As I mention earlier in relation to Meer and ignoring all diversity within and between groups. Modood’s work, one of the defining, citizen- Certainly, in multidisciplinary understandings of ship fuelled drivers of intercultural frameworks, race relations and discrimination, such integra- certainly as proposed by Cantle (2008; 2012), tions of psycho-social frameworks are laudable is the need to subscribe to a national identity, and frequently used. Exploring the multifaceted whilst acknowledging cultural and ethnic differ- and shifting nature of identity as a lived, dynamic ences. Such uniting glue (Bourne 2007) would

129 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

then function as a way of bridging the perceived policy equation as the persistent legacies of colo- gaps and separations that appear to have been nial and imperial histories. generated by people living in cultural silos. The One of the problems with the vague basis of problems with this are numerous (elaborated by interculturally framed interventions this is that Meer and Modood 2012a; 2012b), but focus on it does not appear to specify the mechanisms of the assertion by authors such as Modood (2007) creating the appropriate conditions for change. that multiculturalism has already been and con- The proposed shift in thinking about identity in tinues to be at the forefront of allowing expres- this direction towards a nuanced, context rich sions of cultural identity; it also simultaneously and agency-structure informed analysis is some- advocates a series of national narratives which thing sociologists and political scientists have are inclusive, and not dependent on essentialis- been focusing on for many decades. The dynamic ing, nationalist notions of majoritarian belonging complexities of identity, as well the enduring (CMEB 2000). social, cultural, psychological and economic The charge of illiberality and relativism often legacies of empire would need to be translated circulates within the discourse of culture, citi- into radical modification in political representa- zenship and rights, and has forcefully emerged tion and a connected redistribution of resources. in relation to caricatured Muslim communities. Such vigilance against structural inequalities and This is contested through the example of Muslim connected discriminatory practices are necessar- claims being characterised as difficult to accom- ily connected to multicultural diversity, not sepa- modate because of the perceived ways in which rate. Interculturalism’s focus on global, ‘trans- the faith imposes limits on individual rights. Meer locational’ (Anthias 2001) identities as newly and Modood (2012b.) argue that through this formed, liberating articulations of identity which negative association between Muslim groups and can transcend prejudicial dispositions echoes ‘illiberality’, a sense of ‘otherness’ is perpetuated, the transnationalism and cosmopolitanism (Beck one which invokes a variety of related miscog- 2006) project. However, there is a persisting ten- nitions. For example, some practices which are sion between these movements and the endur- perceived to be sourced in religious orthodoxy ing nation-state fuelled ideas of difference and are actually cultural in their formation and ori- belonging. As Bulmer and Solomos (1998) have gin (e.g. forced marriages, clitoridectomy), and pointed out, border crossing and border chal- would be more effectively eliminated using reli- lenging is often underpinned by inequalities, gion rather than condemning faith based prac- hostilities and conflict. Such conflicts are part of tices. Similarly, the increasingly public issue of the complex backdrop of race and class, which faith schools appears to have been carried along require various levels of re-engagement. by the misconception that a community’s needs for specific requirements to be met are ‘cultural’, De-racing and De-classing the Debate? when in fact as research (Pecenka and Anthias It seems that a major characteristic of the rela- 2014) indicates, these requests are more to do tionship between multicultural analyses, cultural with securing future opportunities for young sociological observations and interculturalism is people within a community. From this reading, precisely the over culturalisation and de-politi- some consideration needs to be made in moving cisation of experiences. Anti-racist discourse wholesale and uncritically from notions of mul- (accepting the diversity in ‘discourses’ and their ticulturalism to interculturalism. The contingent political contexts) in the form sustained by, for and shifting nature of the internal and external example, the Institute of Race Relations contin- organisation of ideas of cannot be reduced to ues to maintain a notable presence and vigilance a single dialogic, intercultural space. Rather, it against forms of race related discrimination. needs to be placed in the same intellectual and Authors such as Virdee (2010) articulate the need

130 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

to frame and redraw the multiculturalism and rapidly transcending the right of centre position, race debate along the lines of historical mate- and populist parties such as UKIP take a stronger rialism and the continued impact of unequal position in national politics. We necessarily need economic relations. In engaging with ‘debates to raise concerns about the politicised reactions on difference’ in the contemporary era, there to ‘others’. As Hall in his intellectual questioning is an increasing importance in maintaining con- of what a ‘more profoundly inclusive British-ness’ nection with a material analysis of experiences. might require argued, ‘unstable localisms, spaces Lentin (2008: 313) asks an important question of proliferating difference ultimately become of the ‘positive turn’ – the turn away from the communities in translation’. (2000: 217, cited in perceived negativity of ‘anti-politics’ towards the Jaggi 2000). ‘celebration of diversity’ – namely, what happens While Modood (2005) has already called for next? A similar question can be asked of the cur- multicultural approaches that recognise and rent debates and themes of this paper – where tackle multiple racisms and different forms of does the debate move to if this is a post-racial discrimination, there appears to be more room age but within which race is still an undeniably for an incorporation of Sivanandan’s (1977) early lived experience? The ‘post-race-ness’ stance arguments in anti-racism and trade union rac- within these frameworks of diversity may be side ism regarding the conditions he thinks would be stepping crucial identifications of oppression and absolute prerequisites for an ‘inter-racial work- inequalities, hidden beneath the multiple layers ing-class agency’. In Sivanandan’s early writings, of ‘attitudinal surveys’ (e.g. Department for Com- there is a necessity for racialised, discriminated munities and Local Government 2011). groups to raise their class consciousness through Interculturalism indicates that systems of glo- ‘colour’ consciousness, and for ‘white’ people, balisation, freedom of capital, and movement a recovery of class awareness through under- of labour (Cantle 2012) positively corrode insu- standing and consciousness of racial oppression. lar, individualist notions of identity. This - appar In a contemporary multi-ethnic, linguistic, and ently leads almost magically to forms of cosmo- culturally globalised world, clearly such stark politan, international, hybrid allegiances which binarism could not do justice to social complex- transcend outdated notions of ‘race’. Intercultur- ity. And yet it redirects our attention to the idea alism’s defiant stance toward race thinking in a of consciousness of materiality – and how this contemporary socio-political landscape riddled is played out against the backdrop of racialised with populist political spinning (for example, differences. There appears to be some scope for with the moveable feast that is immigration), a re-engagement with this modality, certainly in appears to be somewhat matter out of place. the way in which interculturalism defends its uni- The weight of evidence which indicates current versalistic, intergroup dialogue driven emphasis. immigration discourse is still mobilising the ever As Virdee (2000, 2010) has argued, independent, present tropes of dangerous and economically autonomous self-organisation was crucial in the / culturally draining foreigners is overwhelming gradual solidifying of class solidarity, importantly (Grayson 2013; Burnett 2013). This, then, raises involving white organised labour. This mobilisa- an important question about discourses around tion of political and practical unity was an invalu- multiculturalism and ‘interculturality’ – where able, pragmatic tool in furthering race-class dia- are ‘they’ located now and where might they be lectical analysis in the context of understanding located in the possible future, given the chang- the world through a historical materialism that ing national and global landscape in economic allowed for agency. The point I emphasise here and psycho-social manifestation of reactions is that whilst globalisation and transnational to different ‘others’? These are pertinent ques- labour and capital movement makes the class- tions given as current UK government policies race relationship ever more complex, this should

131 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

not detract from the fact that racialised struc- intercultural dialogue (exchanging greetings as tural and economic inequalities endure in the UK. ‘chit-chat’). This may over-simplify many of the These perpetual mechanisms of exclusion will complex interactional and structural operations require more than locally acted and state driven which might be involved in these frameworks versions of a national identity narrative, even of diversity. Cantle (2012), for example, con- less so one which is built on fragile conceptual tends that interculturalism, as contrasted against ground. intercultural dialogue, ‘involves wider commu- It is the intersectionality and multiplicity of nity, structural and political processes’ (2012: inequalities which have driven wedges between 157). The discourse in the area itself, however, groups of identified ethnic and cultural unities, consistently utilises these simple tropes (inter- not the presence of multiculturalism as policy actions between people via the newsagent, the or practice (Rattansi 2011). Evidence for these local shopkeeper and the school gates). My cri- structural inequalities is now well established tique is by no means without support – Meer and, in relation to cohesion (indicated by trust), and Modood are vehemently critical of this there is also a well-established array of evidence attempt to “…displace the political; to critique to indicate that trust is lowest in the poorest a political multiculturalism with an apolitical, areas (c.f. Crowley and Hickman 2008). So, whilst local-encounters-based individualism”. (2012b: a plethora of empirical research and theoretical 235). These tropes do not allow for the constant progress exists and continues to re-assert the interplay of both ‘old’ and ‘new’ generations of importance of this multiple consciousness of racialised subjugation, the enduring and recycled structural contexts to racial and ethnic division, legacies of colonialism, nor the stark realities of the populist sentiment as well as policy direction colourised and ethnicised markers of difference, rests on the lack of cohesive glue between com- such as skin colour, cultural and religious adorn- munities (Bourne 2007). Race as a modality of ments and dress. As Sivanandan reminds us, subjugated experience and divisive entity is still some of us live with: “…racism that cannot tell a very much alive, enacted and operates through settler from an immigrant, an immigrant from an organised / institutionalised forms as well as asylum seeker, an asylum seeker from a Muslim, unorganised and violent everyday action (Lentin a Muslim from a terrorist. All of us non-whites, at and Titley 2011). We may very well be ‘post- first sight, are terrorists or illegals. We wear our race’, but as Lentin (2008) points out, socio-eco- passports on our faces”. (2008: xv). nomic contexts continue to have a huge impact This deficit then throws into question the on racialised experiences. ‘Post-race’ does not, ability of these frameworks to hold significant therefore, mean post-racialisation, and aca- emancipatory purchase during a time of increas- demic debates about race nomenclature do not ing turbulence throughout not only European prevent racist violence – practical or symbolic. but global political debates concerning immigra- The links between apparently looking forward tion. The recent debacle around the UK Home through globalised lenses towards intercultural- Office immigration ‘initiatives’, which involved ism and dismissing the revolutionary and resis- the placement of vans displaying threatening tance movements which fought and won race messages to would-be illegal immigrants, was and equality battles appear in relief. The gradual enacted using official state machinery and all the silencing of race under a ‘new’, analytical regime apparatuses available at the time, including UK of contact, mixing, assimilationist integration is Border Agency and British Transport police staff less challenging to state fuelled muscular liber- (Grayson 2013). What Grayson calls the ‘main- alism than the presence of muscular dissidence. streaming’ and ‘embedding’ of racism into Brit- Indeed, “banal interactions” (Cantle 2012: 148) ish politics is also part of the current ideological are identified as a significant component to transition facing communities at the moment.

132 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

The sanitisation of racism, via various cultural, activism and discussion concerning structural, faith, security and immigration risk-tropes is White hegemonic fuelled discrimination, espe- really the politics of reasonable prejudice, and cially in light of institutional racism (Pilkington might not be fully contained, articulated or man- 2011), a one-size-fits-all approach simply cannot aged by interculturalist approaches in a manner do justice to the many ways in which dimensions which facilitate an understanding of both old and of difference are interlinked. This reinforces one new forms of racialised oppression. of the main aims of this paper, to emphasise that interculturalist based critique of multiculturalism Intersectional Possibilities? is facilitated by a gradual reduction of racialised In this section, I raise the question of where experiences to ‘diversity’ and ‘citizenship’ based intersectionality can sit if interculturalism is debates. The implication of these reductions is charged with the resolution of problems related a de-racing and de-classing pattern, which fun- to a multi-ethnic UK. My principal point is that in damentally undermines the ethos of interacting the process of moving away from the race-class and cooperating diverse societies. consciousness that informed multiculturalism Regardless of whether we engage with the (if not completely characterised it), there is a dif- ‘new interculturality’ (Cantle 2012), racist attacks, ferential cost of omitting these layers of context racist verbal and physical abuse, and institu- for black and minority people. It is yet another tional racism all persist (IRR 2012). Importantly, missed opportunity to take strength from a fuller, as bell hooks (1994) has cogently and persis- radicalised and political questioning of policy, tently argued the normalised, routinized, mun- academic discourse and practice, which does dane acceptance (for all parties) of racialization not treat the intersectionality as trivial. Whilst of everyday social action is an eroding force in I do not intend to exhaustively rehearse the collective civil societies. There appears to be well-established arguments in the field of inter- then a place for an interrelated and integrated sectionality, a number of broad brush strokes to approach to anti-racist, citizenship based ‘critical describe the approach may help in contextualis- multiculturalism’ (Farrar 2012) at both policy and ing the impacts of neglecting it. Firstly, why do civic level which does not operate simply on the I invoke the area of intersectionality here? The ‘incident-based’ reactive level. Rather, it works on answer lies in the sociological and anthropologi- the overwhelmingly evidenced existence of what cal insight that racism and racialisation (Miles hooks (1994), discussing North American values, 1989) are not limited to binary oppositions, nor has consistently called the ‘white supremacist is racial discrimination characterised solely by capitalist patriarchy’. These networks of eco- reference to race (Song 2014). Intersectional- nomic, material, and intellectual hegemonised ity brings into the debate not just the unreduc- racism perpetuate negative representations and ible facticity of cultural diversity (Parekh 2000a) resist any form of dissent activated from within but fully recognises the interlinking of subjugat- subjugated racialised groups. This empower- ing experiences on a range of dimensions. Thus ment / resistance framework may be explicitly Anthias (1989) and Yuval-Davis (1997) have con- useful here because an integrated multi-disci- sistently articulated the importance of viewing plinary approach necessarily needs to look at social divisions through an intersectional lens. the insights brought into focus by academics Rather than treating race and gender as epiphe- and activists working at the margins of discourse nomena – playing second fiddle to the ‘real’ issue but at the centre of intersectionality. Such an of class relations ‘…classes are always gendered approach facilitates a critical engagement with and racialised and gender is always classed and and between the practical and symbolic markers racialised…’ (Anthias 2010: 241). As Song (2014) of difference – the lived and abstracted realities – reminds us, while there needs to be a vigilant as crucial for full cultural and political citizenship.

133 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

Although in terms of policy recognition there is Many of the issues focused upon to mobilise widespread approval and utilisation of intersec- this new hybridised left/right political rhetoric – tional approaches (Anthias 2012), there is doubt in the service of creating new symbolic, practical about the level of criticality that approaches and political boundaries of tolerance have been can engage in when one takes into account the about Muslims communities – people, practices relative activist-state positioning of research and and beliefs (Lentin and Titley 2011; Kundnani interventions. In other words, if interculturalism 2012; Ahmad and Modood 2007). This raises a purports to force through centralised policies question around those communities in Britain of for example ‘community cohesion’, to what which, although traditionally were part of the extent could those same policies allow for an mainstream focus of ‘race relations’ and ethnic- internally critical gaze? State led formulations of ity discourse (Ballard 1994), have now been rela- ‘national’ identity would fundamentally need to tively hidden from the spotlight. The attention be questioned. seems to have turned away from the continued In the case of Intersectionality and intercul- racialised experience of for example South Asian turalism, there is a sense that through gaining a Hindus and Black African Caribbean populations, national citizenship based unity through dialogue and shifted towards Muslim based discrimina- and communication, racialised and gendered tory discourse. Moreover, simply because the subjugation become secondary and peripheral. mainstream academic focus has shifted does not Structures of subjugation rarely operate on mean we can assume that the everyday, lived one dimension so current discourse necessarily experience of other groups in the UK does not needs to be involved in analysis of several frames continue to be characterised and punctuated of experience simultaneously. Without a prop- by many different forms of subjugation. Kund- erly systematic and organised engagement with nani (2012) perceives there to be a widespread voices of resistance and empowerment, forms (ideological and expedient) pessimism about ‘… of internalised, habituated and embodied subju- resolving this supposed crisis of Muslim identity gation will be glossed over in favour of populist and liberal values through conventional demo- ideas which seem to corroborate the constructed cratic processes…’ (2012: 158). Does this invis- need to ‘citizenise.’ ibility imply that other minority groups have now been successfully ‘integrated’ and therefore no Where are the Other ‘Others’? longer pose a challenge to the neo-imperial and As some minority groups become more visible neo-colonial philosophical and political ontolo- and ‘problematised’, others appear to be - per gies underpinning British democratic citizen- forming a disappearing act, seemingly deemed hood? Since relatively little material seems to ‘correctly’ or ‘safely’ integrated, as contrasted to be emerging in this debate around these groups other groups constructed as ‘troublesome’, or (exceptions are Zavos 2009; Mawani and- Muk examples of ‘poor’ integration. I intend to high- adam 2012), it might be useful to maintain a crit- light this seemingly conspicuous absence as hav- ical resistance against the rapid transformation ing an impact on the landscape of multi-cultural of racialised discourse into anti-Muslim discrimi- negotiation. This leads me to ask if recent nega- nation. A continued examination of the burdens tive, ideological constructions of Muslims in the and dynamic tensions in people’s lives when UK (and Europe), as well as much needed reac- they are subject to what Back and Sinha call ‘the tions from academics intending to contest these social weight of racism’ (2012: 13) would need to negative constructions, have left their mark remain critical about this apparently differential on the multicultural landscape in the form of integration into ‘Englishness’ or ‘Britishness’. homegenising and neglecting the existence of This supposed differential ‘Englishness’ felt problems in these other, ‘other’ communities? by different cultural, ethnic and religious groups

134 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

is interestingly evoked by Uberoi and Modood I make this point because there appears to be (2010: 312) and highlighted in an interview with a similar, symbolic and practical move reflected David Blunkett (the then Home Secretary) in in the focus on intercultulrality. Political rheto- 2008, who stated: ‘The Hindu community have ric in this direction also implicitly accepts some managed not to be the focal point of bitterness minority groups (specifically middle class Hindu and hatred…because there’s very much a larger groups in the UK) who have been a feature of middle class, and wherever you have a larger established migrant networks as a feature of the middle class…then integration, social cohesion British landscape. Their ‘integration’ and ‘assimi- go hand in hand…’. Blunkett performs the func- lation’ are constructed as complete therefore do tion of reinforcing existing stereotypes about not re-emerge as ‘troublesome’ in any symbolic ‘bad’ migrants and ‘good’ migrants, and sec- or practical way. Cameron’s 2011 Munich speech ondly manages to homogenise an entire range of firmly asserting “Frankly, we need a lot less of groups differentiated by geographical and class the passive tolerance of recent years and much origin, dialect, caste, and crucially material posi- more active, muscular liberalism”, was clearly tion. In many ways this raises the more general not aimed at British Hindus when he visited a question about the ‘absent presence’ of other temple in North West London, as part of the 2013 ‘others’, and more specifically about the unwill- annual Diwali festival. Indeed, in a speech given ingness to acknowledge the continuity in adverse at this visit, he was instead aligning his idealised socio-economic positions among groups. As British, muscular liberalism with the beliefs, prac- Kundnani summarises, ‘…the crises of multicul- tices, and value of this group of accepted others, turalism discourse erases the complex histories arguing that the values of the UK’s Indian com- of settlement and interaction which have charac- munity should be “ever more involved” in shap- terised actual multiculturalism in Britain, and this ing British life (Asian Image 2013). Such official discourse is stubbornly ignorant of the multiple and state sanctioned openness can be traced in meanings that multiculturalism has always had’ the history of both modern British government (2012: 158). If we are to consider this seriously in (Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and light of recent academic moves in critical citizen- Gordon Brown as Prime Ministers all publically ship based multiculturalism and intercultulralism, visited Hindu Temples in the UK) and colonial then we need to remain vigilant against over sim- and imperial legacy (Suleri 1992). plifying who it is that remains at the ‘impact end’ The history of diversity in the UK proves that of these practices. some groups have been in positions where The politically, economically and ideologically mobilisation of networks, length of established expedient dismissal and somewhat mysterious settlement and the inherited economic, bio- disappearance of these other, non-Muslim groups graphical and migration legacies have been from debate and discussion reflects attempts at favourable. How the state utilises its cultural a “unified discourse of identity” (Kundnani 2012: and racial gaze will form part of the normalis- 159). The ideological hybridisation of left-wing, ing, nationalist civilising gaze. These differential right wing, conservative and liberal ideas of citi- ‘otherings’ need to be located as examples of cul- zenship and belonging, result in what Lentin and tural racialisation; otherwise, the uneven shifts Titley (2011) call ‘assimilationist integration poli- in cultural, economic, and political power lead cies’. This ultimately leads to the conclusion that to injustices to those groups who still occupy new integrationist tendencies (to do ostensibly positions outside of and below this hierarchy. with culture and citizenship, rather than explic- This automatically dismisses the continued- dif itly race and belonging) are part of the liberal ferential advantages and disadvantages that can struggles to attain rights in the arenas of sexual exist in the experiences of a diverse group of freedom, secular citizenship, and expression. people, and negates the possibility that within

135 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

these non-Muslim groups there also exist politi- way in which enduring experiences of systematic cal ideologies, expression and notions of coun- racialised subjugation can be mitigated by inter- ter liberal beliefs. These ‘closed-chapter’ narra- sectional analyses. The importance of multi-fac- tives, exemplified by the state’s congratulatory eted approaches to the study of inequalities and stance on Asian business development and intervention in the discursive processes of power ‘contributions’ to the UK (BBC News 2007), also relations cannot be underestimated. They can, fail to acknowledge the political, ideological and however, be undermined by wholesale rejec- economic divisions which mediate associated tion of multiculturalism in favour of intercultural relationships between caste and class. Recent approaches. Finally, I raise a question about the research (Metcalf and Rolfe 2010) indicates that processes of differential treatment of minori- discrimination based on caste is an important ties as they become subject to varying politically positive and negative feature of many UK South expedient gazes. Some minorities are deemed Asian communities, further indicating that these acceptable, having achieved the prescriptive particular chapters on assumed ‘assimilation’ or level of ‘integration’’ or are regarded as more ‘integration’ are far from closed. culturally malleable. Others such as the vari- How, then, will progress in critical debates ous Muslim communities in the UK have been about difference take into account these shifting deemed troublesome, and a threat to national and temporal positions within a social and politi- British identity, public order and national secu- cal landscape which itself appears to be in ideo- rity. These debates play out against a backdrop logical and practical flux? The named ‘crises of of critique railed towards the constructions of multiculturalism’ has emerged as a practical and multicultural failures, and are part of contempo- symbolic crossroads, brought together by new rary, ideological power relations in the arena of European integrationist liberal notions of citizen- race, diversity, culture and identity. The question ship, fully awake to a wide variety of geo-political remains focused on how the UK and its counter- fragilities (Kundnani 2012). These insecurities parts in mainland Europe can mobilise the politi- operate not just in processes currently within the cal and ideological will to remain vigilant against academic and policy analysis discourses but also the worst excesses of fear-fuelled conceptu- on an everyday, lived and embodied level (Back alisations of the ‘other’. Continuing to reframe and Sinha 2012). citizenship within an intersectional understand- ing of materiality, race and difference, within an Conclusion understanding of inclusive citizenship requires a In this paper I have argued that contemporary re-engagement with the success of multicultural- discussions regarding interculturalism’s better fit ism. These observations and critiques raise some for dealing with diversity is problematic and sim- questions about the impacts of new frameworks plistically conceptualised. I have drawn on Meer of diversity and difference which may relegate and Modood’s (2012a; 2012b) tackling of these notions of racism, class and differential othering comparisons. In discussing these issues, I assert to secondary importance. that the interculturalist’s critique of multicultur- alism, especially the policy-backed directions, is particularly troublesome because it neglects References some important considerations. The prominence AHMAD, F. and T. MODOOD. 2007. “British Muslim of ‘diversity’ in all its forms, an emphasis on Perspectives on Multiculturalism”. Theory, Cul- universality, forms of allegiance to constructed ture and Society 24 (3): 187-213. AMIN, A. 2002. “Ethnicity and the Multicultural national identities, and the ubiquity of ‘cohesion’ City”. Environment and Planning A 34(6): 959- policies have a de-racing and de-classing effect 980. on the debate. Such impacts then hinder the

136 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

ANTHIAS, F. 1989. “Women and Nationalism in Bulmer, M. and J. Solomos. 1998. “Introduc- Cyprus”. In: N. Yuval-Davis and F. Anthias, eds., tion: rethinking Ethnic and Racial Studies”. Eth- Woman, Nation, State.Basingstoke: Macmillan. nic and Racial Studies, 21 (5), 19-37. ———. 2001. “New Hybridities, Old Concepts: The Burnett, J. 2013. “Racial Violence: Facing Real- Limits of Culture”. Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 ity. Institute of Race Relations”. Available from: (4): 617-641. http://www.irr.org.uk/publications/issues/ra- ———. 2010. “Nation and Post-Nation: Nationalism, cial-violence-facing-reality [Accessed 6th Janu- Transnationalism and Intersections of Belong- ary 2014]. ing”. In: P. Hill Collins and J. Solomos, eds., The Cantle, T. 2001. Community Cohesion: A Report Sage Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies. Lon- of the Independent Review Team. London: Home don: Sage. Office. ———. 2012. “Intersectional what? Social divisions, ———. 2008. Community Cohesion – A new frame- intersectionality and levels of analysis”. Ethnici- work for Race and Diversity. Basingstoke: Pal- ties 13(1): 3-19. grave Macmillan ASIAN IMAGE. 2013. “Prime Minister visits Neas- ———. 2012. Interculturalism – The New Era of Co- den Temple for Diwali. 5th November 2013”. hesion and Diversity. Palgrave Macmillan: Lon- Available from: http://www.asianimage.co.uk/ don. news/10784874.Prime_Minister_visits_Neas- CMEB (Commission on Multi-Ethnic Brit- den_Temple_for_Diwali. [Accessed 6th January ain). 2000. The future of multi-ethnic Britain. 2014]. London: Profile Back, I. and S. Sinha. 2012. “New Hierarchies of Crowley, H. and Hickman, M. 2008. “Migra- Belonging”. European Journal of Cultural Studies tion, post industrialism and the globalized na- 15 (2): 139-54. tion state: social capital and social cohesion Ballard, R., ed. 1994. Desh Pardesh: The South re-examined”. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (7): Asian Presence in Britain. London: Hurst and Co. 1222-1244. Battercharya, G. 2009. Ethnicities and Values in Denham, J. 2001. Building Cohesive Communities: a Changing World. Surrey: Ashgate. A Report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order BBC NEWS ONLINE. 2007. Sea change in UK-India and Community Cohesion. London: HMSO. relations’ [online]. BBC News Online, 16th Janu- Department for Communities and Lo- ary. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/ cal Government. (DCLG). 2011. 2009-2010 hi/world/south_asia/6267387.stm [Accessed Citizenship Survey: Race, Religion and Equalities 10th February 2013]. Topic Group, England. London: DCLG. ———. 2010. Merkel says German multicultural so- Farrar, M. 2004. “Social Movements and the ciety has failed. BBC News Online, 17 October. Struggle Over ‘Race’”. In: Malcom J. Todd and Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ Gary Taylor, eds., Democracy and Participation – world-europe-11559451 [Accessed 1st March Popular protest and new social movements. Lon- 2013]. don: Merlin Press. ———. 2011. State multiculturalism has failed, says Farrar, M., S. Robinson, Y. Valli and Paul David Cameron., BBC News Online, 5 February. Wetherly. 2012. Islam in the West Key Issues Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ in Multiculturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mac- uk-politics-12371994 [Accessed 1st March millan. 2013]. Fekete, L. 2004. “Anti-Muslim Racism and the Eu- Beck, U. 2006. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: ropean Security State”. Ethnic and Racial Studies Polity. 46 (1): 3-29. Bourne, J. 2007. “In defence of Multiculturalism. ———. 2011. Cameron’s Munich speech marks Institute of Race Relations briefing paper No 2”. securitisation of race policy. Comment, Febru- Available at: www.irr.org.uk. [Accessed 10th ary 7th. Available from: http://www.irr.org.uk/ June 2014]. news/camerons-munich-speech-marks-securi- Brah, A. 1996. Cartographies of Diaspora: Contest- tisation-of-race-policy/ [Accessed 10th Febru- ing Identities. London: Routledge. ary 2013.]

137 New Diversities 16 (2), 2014 Harshad Keval

Gilroy, P. 2004. After Empire: Multiculture or Post- Lentin, A. 2004. “Multiculturalism or anti-racism?” colonial Melancholia. London: Routledge. Open Democracy, 2nd September. Available ———. 2012. “’My Britain is fuck all’ zombie multi- from: http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts- culturalism and the race politics of citizenship”. multiculturalism/article_2073.jsp [Accessed Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 1st March 2013]. 19(4): 380-397. ———. 2008. After anti-racism? European Journal Gomarasca, P. 2013. “Multiculturalism or - Hy of Cultural Studies 11 (3): 311-331. bridisation? Cultural Mixing and Politics”. Diver- Lentin, A. and G. Titley 2011. The Crises of Mul- sities 15 (2): 67-80. ticulturalism – Racism in a Neoliberal Age. Lon- Goodhart , D. 2004. “Too Diverse?” Prospect don: Zed Books. Magazine. February 20. Available from: http:// Mattausch, J. 1998. “From subjects to citizens: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/too- British East African Asians”.Journal of Ethnic and diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-brit- Migration Studies, 24 (1), 121-142. ain-immigration-globalisation/ [Accessed 10th Mawani. S. and A. Mukadam., eds. 2012. Eds. February 2013]. Gujarati Communities Across The Globe: Memo- Grayson. J. 2013. “The shameful ‘Go Home’ cam- ry, Identity and Continuity. Stoke on Trent: Trent­ paign”. Comment, Institute of Race Relations ham Books. August 22nd.Available from: http://www.irr.org. Meer, N. 2014 Race & Ethnicity. London: Sage. uk/news/the-shameful-go-home-campaign Meer, N. and T. Modood. 2012a. “Intercultural- [Accessed 6th January 2014]. ism, Multiculturalism or Both?” Political Insight Hall, S. 2000. “Conclusion: The Multicultural 3 (1): 30-33. Question”. In: B. Hesse, ed., Un/settled Multicul- ———. 2012b. “How does Interculturalism Con- turalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, Transrup- trast with Multiculturalism?” Journal of Inter- tions. London : Zed Books. cultural Studies 33:2: 175-196.Metcalf, H. and Hewstone, M., N. Tausch, J. Hughes and E. H. Rolfe. 2010. “Caste discrimination and ha- Cairns. 2007. “Prejudice, intergroup contact rassment in Great Britain. National Institute of and identity: Do neighbourhoods matter?” In: Economic and Social Research”. Available from: M. Wetherell, M. Lafleche and R. Berkeley, eds., http://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/caste- Identity, ethnic diversity and community cohe- discrimination-and-harassment-great-britain#. sion, 102-112. London: Sage. VIjFvmCzWUk. [Accessed 6th December 2014]. hooks, B. 1994. Outlaw culture: resisting repre- Miles, R. 1989. Racism. London: Routledge. sentations. New York: Routledge. MODOOD, T. 1994. “Political Blackness and British Hussain, Y. and P. Bagguley. 2005. “Citizenship, Asians”. Sociology 28(4): 859-876. Ethnicity and Identity: British Pakistanis after the ———. 2005. Multicultural Politics: racism, ethnicity 2001 ‘Riots’”. Sociology 39(3): 407-425. and Muslims in Britain. Minneapolis, MN: Uni- Jaggi, M. 2000. “Prophet at the margins”. The versity of Minneapolis Press. Guardian, 8 July. Available from: http://www. ———. 2007. Multiculturalism. London: Polity Press. guardian.co.uk/books/2000/jul/08/society Modood, T. and N. Meer. 2008. “The Multicul- [Accessed 1st March 2013]. tural State We’re In: Muslims, ‘Multiculture’ and James, M. 2008. Interculturalism: Theory and Poli- the ‘Civic re-Balancing’ of British Multicultural- cy, Interculturality Special Initiative. London: The ism”. Political Studies 57: 473-497. Baring Foundation. Parekh, B. 2000a. The Future of Multi-Ethnic ———. 2009. Interculturalism: Social policy and Britain, Revised edition (2002). London: Profile Grassroots Work. London: The Baring Founda- Books. tion. ———. 2000b. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cul- Kundnani, A. 2012. “Multiculturalism and its dis- tural Diversity and Political Theory. Basingstoke: contents: Left, Right and Liberal”. European Jour- Palgrave Macmillan. nal of Cultural Studies, 15 (2), pp.155-66. PECENKA, J. and ANTHIAS, F. 2014 “Minor- Kymlicka, W. 2012. “Comment on Meer and Mo- ity faith schools as claims for cultural recog- dood”. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33:2, 211- nition? Two examples from England. Identi- 216.

138 From ˈMulticulturalismˈ to ˈInterculturalismˈ New Diversities 16 (2), 2014

ties – Global Studies in Culture and Power. DOI: ticulturalism and The politics of Recognition. 10.1080/1070289X.2014.964246 Princeton: Princeton University Press. Philips, D. 2006. “Parallel lives? Challenging Dis- Uberoi, V. and T Modood. 2010. “Who doesn’t courses of British Muslim Self-Segregation”. En- feel British? Division over Muslims”. Parliamen- vironment and Planning D: Society and Space tary Affairs 63 (2): 302-320. 21(1): 25-40. Virdee, S. 2000. “A Marxist Critique of Black Radi- ———. 2005. “After 7/7 Sleepwalking into Segre- cal Theories of Trade-union Racism”. Sociology gation (Speech given to Manchester Council for 34 (3): 545-565. Community Relations)”. 22 September 2005. ———. 2010. “Racism, class and the dialectics of so- Available from http://www.humanities.man- cial Transformation”. In: P. Hill Collins and J. Solo- chester.ac.uk. [Accessed on 6th January 2014]. mos, eds., The Sage Handbook of Race and Eth- Pilkington, A. 2011. Institutional Racism in the nic Studies. London: Sage. Academy – A Case Study. Stoke On Trent: Tren- Watt, N. 2012. “Olympics opening ceremony tham Books. was ‘multicultural crap’ Tory MP tweets”. The Rattansi, A. 2011 Multiculturalism: A Very Short Guardian, 28th July. Available from: http://www. Introduction. Oxford University Press. guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/28/olympics- Sen, A. 1999. Reason before identity. Oxford: Ox- opening-ceremony-multicultural-crap-tory-mp ford University Press. [Accessed 15th December 2012] Sivanandan, A. 1977. “The Liberation of the Werbner, P. 2012. “Multiculturalism from Abive Black Intellectual”. Race and Class 18: 329-343. ad Below: Analysing a Political Discourse”. Jour- ———. 2008. Catching history on the wing. London: nal of Intercultural Studies 33:2: 197-209. Pluto Press. Yuval-Davis, N. 1997. Gender and Nation. Lon- Song, M. 2014. “Challenging culture of racial don: Sage. equivalence”. British Journal of Sociology 65(1): Zavos, J. 2009. “Negotiating Multiculturalism: the 107-129. Organisation of Hindu Identity in Contemporary Suleri, S. 1992. The Rhetoric of English India. Lon- Britain”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies don: University of Chicago Press. 35 (6): 881-900. Taylor, C. 1994. “Multiculturalism and ‘The Poli- tics of Recognition’”. In: A Guttman, ed., Mul-

Note on the Author

Harshad Keval is senior lecturer in Sociology at Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK. He has worked on the intersection of ethnicity, culture, race and health in a variety of countries and contexts, including culture and mental health in South Asia, childhood illnesses in Tanzania and Leprosy in Sri Lanka. His UK research has focused on the experience of diabetes in South Asian populations in the UK, having published previously on the discursive constructions of racialised risk in contemporary health arenas, and now the subject of a forthcoming book. His research interests also span the nature of ‘normalised’ race based rhetoric in contemporary political contexts, and the emergent concerns around post-race discourse.

139