Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

Migration and cultural diversification 111
individual, but it seeks to make the individuals the members of a civic community.
The ‘federation of communities’ option perceives communities as primary units
of public life since individuals belong to and are shaped by communities. The
‘plural state’ recognises both rights for all individuals as well as groups and
institutions, the latter being ‘active public players and forums for political discussion’
(ibid.: 23).
For the plural state the challenge of the new multiculturalism is about the
integration of transplanted cultures . . . into long-established, ongoing, historic,
national cultures ...it is about extending, reforming and syncretizing in new
ways existing forms of public culture and citizenship. It is not about decentring
society or deconstructing the nation-state, but about integrating difference by
remaking the nation-state.
(Modood 1997: 24)
These are ideal, in the Weberian sense, types of responses that may be utilised as
an analytical tool for the interpretation of particular responses.
Currently the restrictive policies concerning the entry of potential immigrants
adopted by most European countries have been balanced with more attention given
to the social, economic, and political incorporation of those already admitted. In the
political domain this general option ranges from expectations that immigrants
will adopt civic principles, to the conviction that interaction between the newcomers
and indigenous people should aim at the construction of a shared political culture.
Under conditions of ethnic and cultural pluralism a shared political culture – that
adds up to a common political language and conventions of conduct – has been
perceived as a ‘common space’ to be constructed through the political action of
all citizens (Habermas). 9 Thus it seems that both ‘the liberal state’ and the ‘republic’
ideals inspire the multicultural policy adopted by the European governments. They
perceive the multi-ethnic and multicultural state as ‘a political community, based
on a constitution, laws and citizenship, with the possibility of admitting newcomers
. . . providing they adhere to the political rules, while at the same time accepting
cultural difference and the formation of ethnic communities’ (Castles and Miller
1993: 39). The approved model seeks a united political community while cultural
diversity is restricted to a private sphere. The public domain, which extends to law,
politics, economics, and welfare policy is to provide equal opportunity and uniform
treatment to everybody. 10 However, the point is that ‘the public domain’ and ‘the
political culture’ are embedded in, and constitute a part of national culture, thus reflect
its values and norms that may still or constantly be alien to the newcomers. Besides,
a purely civil society where everybody can feel at home regardless of creed, or
language does not, yet, exist. There is little doubt that the governments’ responses
to ethnic and cultural pluralism do not lead to a ‘plural state’ ideal but even setting
up the ‘liberal state’ and ‘republic’ ideals encounter serious obstacles.
First, the naturalisation proceedings and the voting-rights issues provoke
controversy. The argument of the immigrant rights’ advocates that ‘Immigrant
demands . . . will not be taken seriously unless local political parties depend on their