Search results

At a time when many public commentators are turning against multiculturalism in response to fears about militant Islam, immigration or social cohesion, Tariq Modood, one of the world's leading authorities on multiculturalism, provides a distinctive contribution to these debates. He contends that the rise of Islamic terrorism has neither discredited multiculturalism nor heralded a clash of civilizations. Instead, it has highlighted a central challenge for the 21st century - the urgent need to include Muslims in contemporary conceptions of democratic citizenship.In the second edition of this popular and compelling book, Modood updates his original argument with two new chapters. He reassesses the relationship between multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism and assimilation, demonstrating that multiculturalism is crucial for successful integration. He also argues that while multiculturalism poses a significant challenge to existing forms of secularism, this challenge should not be exaggerated into a crisis. In so doing, Modood adds new vigor to the claim that multiculturalism remains a living force which is shaping our polities, even as its death is repeatedly announced.This book will appeal to students, researchers and teachers of politics, sociology and public policy, as well as to anyone interested in the prospects of multiculturalism today.

At a time when many public commentators are turning against multiculturalism in response to fears about militant Islam, immigration or social cohesion, Tariq Modood, one of the world's leading authorities on multiculturalism, provides a distinctive contribution to these debates. He contends that the rise of Islamic terrorism has neither discredited multiculturalism nor heralded a clash of civilizations. Instead, it has highlighted a central challenge for the 21st century - the urgent need to include Muslims in contemporary conceptions of democratic citizenship. In the second edition of this po.

1. "Difference, " cultural racism, and antiracism -- 2. If races do not exist, then what does? Racial categorization and ethnic realities -- 3. Ethnic diversity and racial disadvantage in employment -- 4. Ethnic differentials in educational performance -- 5. Reflections on the Rushdie affair : Muslims, race, and equality in Britain -- 6. Muslims, incitement to hatred, and the law -- 7. Multiculturalism, secularism, and the state -- 8. Muslims and the politics of multiculturalism -- 9. Rethinking multiculturalism and liberalism -- Conclusion : plural Britishness.

I rally behind Floyd's call to arms for an approach to political philosophy based on the broad hope 'that we can successfully treat certain forms of human action as expressions [of] normative preferences ripe for conversion into political principles'. I have doubts, however, about his use of social science: it is too selective and is selected on the basis of the avoidance of two social evils and thus does not answer the fundamental questions of political philosophy about the good life and a polity that is based on positive ideals and aspirations. Nor do I see that the avoidance of the normative aloofness of 'continental' critical theory requires the postulation of a universal human nature, a postulate that in any case is unavailable.

Istnieje szereg powodów, by raz jeszcze przemyśleć sekularyzm polityczny. Najbardziej znaczącym z nich jest wyzwanie wielokulturowości, z którym mierzy się Europa Zachodnia. Państwa zachodnioeuropejskie są obecnie bardzo skoncentrowane na wyzwaniach wynikających z różnorodności etniczno-religijnej będącej następstwem imigracji. Nowe osiedla muzułmańskie powstałe na przestrzeni ostatnich pięćdziesięciu lat znajdują się w samym centrum tego problemu. Okoliczności te zmuszają do nowego sposobu myślenia, nie tylko o kwestiach integracji społecznej, ale także o roli religii w odniesieniu do państwa i obywatelstwa. Fundamentalna kwestia, którą wielu uważało za dawno rozstrzygniętą, wyłania się ponownie z nową siłą i budzi nowe kontrowersje – jest nią sekularyzm polityczny, szczególnie w kontekście tolerancji, uznania i zarządzania. Autor niniejszego artykułu twierdzi, że postsekularyzm czy kryzys sekularyzmu mają w Europie Zachodniej dość zasadniczy związek z rzeczywistością wielokulturowości.

The article firstly examines the different conceptions of dialogue and reason within political theory, especially in the work of Rawls. Secondly we explore multicultural political theorists who have been motivated less by abstract reasoning by a sole reasoner or identical identity-less individuals and more by dialogue. For such multiculturalists, the principles of social justice are not known in advance or simply by reason, but are arrived at by conflict and learning, by dialogue and negotiation in circumstances of inequality and minority-claims making. In response to the multiculturalists, interculturalists allege that multiculturalism is too focused on the macro and the conflictual, and dialogue should be redirected to the micro and the cooperative. Although I welcome the interculturalists' focus on micro-relations, this does not require abandoning the idea of dialogue at the level of political controversies and public discourses. It is not an either–or choice because groups and intergroup problems exist in society and cannot be simply handled at a micro level of contact, interaction and sociability. The kind of macro-level dialogue that I am speaking of can also be understood as a form of public intellectual engagement that can contribute to societal dialogues.1
1This article is a reprint of Tariq Modood (2017) 'Intercultural public intellectual engagement' in Fethi Mansouri (ed) Interculturalism at the Crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practice, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France, 83-102.

The four articles that make up this symposium on Tariq Modood's recent collection, Essays on Secularism and Multiculturalism (2019), are based on a public conversation and research colloquium held at Utrecht University on 18 February 2020. In the first article, Modood introduces the conversation with a statement of his thinking over two decades on the subjects of secularism and multiculturalism. This is followed by responses by Pooyan Tamimi Arab and Ernst van den Hemel and, in the fourth and final article, Modood has the last word.

The article firstly examines the different conceptions of dialogue and reason within political theory, especially in the work of Rawls. Secondly we explore multicultural political theorists who have been motivated less by abstract reasoning by a sole reasoner or identical identity-less individuals and more by dialogue. For such multiculturalists, the principles of social justice are not known in advance or simply by reason, but are arrived at by conflict and learning, by dialogue and negotiation in circumstances of inequality and minority-claims making. In response to the multiculturalists, interculturalists allege that multiculturalism is too focused on the macro and the conflictual, and dialogue should be redirected to the micro and the cooperative. Although I welcome the interculturalists' focus on micro-relations, this does not require abandoning the idea of dialogue at the level of political controversies and public discourses. It is not an either–or choice because groups and intergroup problems exist in society and cannot be simply handled at a micro level of contact, interaction and sociability. The kind of macro-level dialogue that I am speaking of can also be understood as a form of public intellectual engagement that can contribute to societal dialogues.1 1This article is a reprint of Tariq Modood (2017) 'Intercultural public intellectual engagement' in Fethi Mansouri (ed) Interculturalism at the Crossroads: Comparative perspectives on concepts, policies and practice, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France, 83-102.

AbstractWhat is often described today as neo‐nationalism or nationalist populism today arguably looks like the old nationalism. What is emerging as genuinely new are the identity‐based nationalisms of the centre left, sometimes called "liberal nationalism" or "progressive patriotism." I offer my own contribution to the latter, which may be called "multicultural nationalism." I argue that multiculturalism is a mode of integration that does not just emphasise the centrality of minority group identities but argues that integration is incomplete without remaking national identity so that all can have a sense of belonging to it. This multiculturalist approach to national belonging has some relation to liberal nationalism. It, however, makes not just individual rights but minority accommodation a feature of acceptable nationalism. Moreover, accommodation here particularly includes ethno‐religious groups in ways that are difficult for radical regimes of secularism. For these reasons, multicultural nationalism unites the concerns of some of those currently sympathetic to majoritarian nationalism and those who are prodiversity and minority accommodationist in the way that liberal nationalism (with its emphasis on individualism and majoritarianism) does not. It therefore represents the political idea and tendency most likely to offer a feasible alternative rallying point to monocultural nationalism.