viewpoints: a first position states that policies on
multiculturalism function to sustain social inequal-
ity; a second holds that such policies promote
change within the norms and values that are the
very foundations of democracies by incorporating
certain elements of the immigrants’ cultures.
Both positions hold some truth. For a critical
perspective of ethnic minorities and multicultural-
ism, we must note that the majority of policies that
are put into action are based on a confusion
between race and culture, a fact explained by their
direct link with the settling of immigrants “of
color.” Those European countries such as the
United Kingdom or the Netherlands that are often
held up as examples of successful multicultural
countries actually became multicultural through a
reactive process. Such reactive multiculturalism is a
response to the economic and social difficulties
generated by the sedentarization of immigrants of
color in traditionally assimilationist countries, even
though such countries may not have been ethni-
cally homogeneous. This has been the predominant
situation in Europe since the Second World War,
where immigrants could no longer be effortlessly
assimilated given that the material potential for
integration had been eroded. At the same time, the
shock waves sent out by the Second World War and
decolonization weakened the notion of a dominant
culture. In this respect, it is revealing that in coun-
tries where regional differences have been pre-
served, such as is the case in the United Kingdom,
Belgium, and the Netherlands, systems put into
place to help new immigrants adapt are specific to
each situation, borrowing very little from the his-
torically-acquired wisdom on the incorporation of
ethnic groups with cultural and linguistic differ-
ences. This happens to such a degree that the term
“ethnic minority” is often made to be synonymous
with “immigrant group.” Britain, for example,
never fully completed cultural integration, meaning
that British culture is far from being homogeneous,
despite the fact that political narratives still orches-
trate a sense of Britishness. However, the settlement
of immigrants in no way benefited from this history
of diversity management. As early as 1958, with
the riots of Nottingham and Notting Hill which
involved immigrants, the illusion of a tolerant
British society was quickly shattered. Unemploy-
ment was almost nonexistent at the time and con-
sequently explanations put forward immediately
evoked immigrants’ skin color and the problems of
racial conflict. The multicultural structures and
systems introduced since 1968 have primarily been
a response to a need to create conditions that will
usher in interracial harmony.30 citizenship
There are, in general, many misunderstandings
and false perceptions regarding the rights and priv-
ileges accorded to ethnic groups. A cursory glance
at the situation in Europe reveals that, far from the
often fantasized perceptions of privileges bestowed
on specific communities or ethnic groups, the poli-
cies that are put into place are, for the most part,
measures taken in order to prevent and fight against
inequality and discrimination linked to race or eth-
nicity. Even in an officially assimilationist country
like France, the use of such policies will be found.
In addition to this element of the battle against
inequalities, there is also in general what Audrey
Kobayashi calls “red boot” multiculturalism
(1993, 205–31), that is, the financing of various
cultural events such as, for example, a festival of
Berber music, a rap concert, or an exhibition of
African art. What is known as multiculturalism,
then, consists in a partial assimilation with the
dominant public culture, and a preservation of indi-
vidual cultures within the private sphere (which
includes not just the family, but the neighborhood
and the world of volunteer organizations). The
arrival of Islam within European societies brings
into question this dominant approach, and engen-
ders a debate on what public culture actually “con-
tains,” explicitly laying down as a principle the
coexistence of several cultures.
In all countries that promote them, multicultural
systems and structures are far from being unan-
imously accepted. The common denominator of
different critical accounts highlights the ineffective-
ness of multiculturalism, which, far from reducing
inequalities, tends, in certain cases, to exacerbate
them by ethnicizing and racializing social and eco-
nomic issues, and by making ethnic groups more
dependent in view of their public financing. Criti-
cism also focuses on the way that the culture that
forms the foundations of public policies is con-
ceived. From this point of view, it is in Sweden that
the denunciation of “ethnic business” and the “eth-
nic Tower of Babel” resounds with the greatest clar-
ity. Alund and Shierup do not baulk at the term
“cultural racism” when describing the manner in
which immigrants’ cultures are trapped by essen-
tialism and exoticism. In a move to respect cultural
differences, the Other’s culture all too often
becomes an artifact disconnected from the living
culture. It is perceived by most people as a homo-
geneous entity, fixed and imported, which the new
immigrants can decide to preserve or replace. It is
thus the dominant groups who define the Other’s
culture, as well as the place assigned to it within the
public sphere. Islam very often becomes a disem-
bodied object of knowledge in whose name public