Suchergebnisse

The book challenges the popular notion of a clash of cultures pitting Muslim and non-Muslim Europeans against one another. The study finds instead vehement conflict among three longstanding European public philosophies: liberalism, nationalism, and postmodernism. The consequential differences of outlook are demonstrated in four policy areas: 1) citizenship requirements, 2) the headscarf debate, 3) mosque-state relations and 4) counter-terrorism. The book reaches three important conclusions. First, Muslim Europeans do not represent a monolithic anti-Western bloc -- a Trojan Horse -- within Europe. They vehemently disagree among themselves but along the same basic liberal, nationalist, and postmodern contours as non-Muslim Europeans. Second, ideological discord significantly contributes to policy "messiness," that is, to inconsistent, contradictory policies. Third, both the discord and the messiness are remarkably similar from one European country to the next, thereby casting doubt on the dominant theory in comparative migration studies that posits distinct national styles such as French republicanism, German ethno-nationalism and British multiculturalism

Both unconventional and original this title resists the alarmist temptation to distort the political influence of German nationalism and instead uncovers sources of inequality in German liberalism which until now have gone unnoticed.

Borders exist and operate not only at formal frontiers but also outside and within European countries. Furthermore, borders both exclude and include migrants. This article advances the theory of differential inclusion. It provides a more nuanced understanding of processes of bordering that comprehends irregular migration as a phenomenon that is not only officially denounced and combatted but also unofficially tolerated and facilitated by European states. The analysis reveals that differential inclusion is transforming citizenship in Europe away from officially desired equality toward unofficially tolerated stratification. Employing Foucault's notion of "assemblage", the article also seeks to shed light on not only whose interests are undermined but also on whose interests are served by differential inclusion.

The book challenges the popular notion of a clash of cultures pitting Muslim and non-Muslim Europeans against one another. The study finds instead vehement conflict among three longstanding European public philosophies: liberalism, nationalism, and postmodernism. The consequential differences of outlook are demonstrated in four policy areas: 1) citizenship requirements, 2) the headscarf debate, 3) mosque-state relations and 4) counter-terrorism. The book reaches three important conclusions. First, Muslim Europeans do not represent a monolithic anti-Western bloc -- a Trojan Horse -- within Europe. They vehemently disagree among themselves but along the same basic liberal, nationalist, and postmodern contours as non-Muslim Europeans. Second, ideological discord significantly contributes to policy "messiness," that is, to inconsistent, contradictory policies. Third, both the discord and the messiness are remarkably similar from one European country to the next, thereby casting doubt on the dominant theory in comparative migration studies that posits distinct national styles such as French republicanism, German ethno-nationalism and British multiculturalism.This title was made Open Access by libraries from around the world through Knowledge Unlatched ; English

This article analyzes the most influential weltanschauungen at play in the politics of immigration in Europe. I categorize relevant value judgments into what I, following Theodore Lowi, call "public philosophies." I highlight three competing public philosophies in the politics of immigration in Europe: 1) liberalism; 2) nationalism; and 3) postmodernism. Liberalism prescribes universal rights protecting the autonomy of the individual, as well as rational and democratic procedures (rules of the game) to govern the pluralism that inevitably results in free societies. Against liberalism, nationalism stresses community and cultural homogeneity in addition to a political structure designed to protect both. Rejecting both liberalism and nationalism, postmodernism posits insurmountable relativism and irreducible cultural heterogeneity accompanied by ultimately irrepressible political antagonism. I examine the three outlooks through a case study of the headscarf debate. The article concludes with consideration of how normative ideas combine with other factors to influence policymaking.