Tony Bennett, Differing diversities - Council of Europe

Differing diversitiesaround multiculturalism, the politics of difference, and the position of indigenousminorities.” (ibid.: 1491).There is little doubt that the legacy of such conceptions of citizenship remains verymuch intact, although the forms this take vary depending on the specific versionsof citizenship that apply in different national contexts. Umberto Melotti (1997: 75-78), in reviewing these questions, argues that the conditions of citizenship in manyEuropean countries take the form of “ethnocentric assimilationism” – best exemplifiedby the French case – in which immigrants are eligible for the same rightsenjoyed by native citizens provided that, at least in the public sphere, they abandontheir claims to cultural difference and assimilate thoroughly into the culture ofthe host society. Elements of this aspect of citizenship are evident in Switzerland,Belgium, and Austria – where, until 1998, the naturalisation law demanded“assimilation to the Austrian way of life” and still requires the integration of theapplicant into Austrian culture and society – as well as in Luxembourg where,however, their presence is not quite so marked. The debates about diversity inthese contexts often exhibit distinctive characteristics as a consequence of theemphasis that is placed on immigrants undergoing a programme of culturalretraining that will allow for their effective integration into the national society asa condition for full citizenship. Where such conceptions prevail, the scope for culturaldiversity policies is obviously constrained. A key question thus concerns theextent to which such views will prove revisable over the near to medium-termfuture when, for a variety of reasons, their legitimacy is likely to be increasinglycontested. 1The situation in Britain is somewhat different – Melotti characterises it as one of“uneven pluralism” – in that, rather than drawing a clear-cut distinction betweencitizens and non-citizens, it operates with a range of intermediate positions, linkedto the history of the Commonwealth, which differentiates between citizens accordingto their place of birth and British ancestry (or “patriality”). 2 This has meant thatimmigrants from Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries have oftenreceived full citizenship rights without the requirement that they adopt a Britishway of life. It has also meant that, rather than addressing the immigrant individuallyand directly in the context of government-sponsored integration programmes,immigrants have been related to indirectly through the intermediaries of ethniccommunity associations as parts of “race and ethnic relations programmes”premised on the assumption that there will be enduring differences betweenBritain’s minority and majority ethnic groups. This sometimes results, as one of itsmore obvious negative consequences, in a tendency toward a strong social and__________1. Melotti (1997: 77) advances three general reasons in support of this contention: first, that the moreglobal patterns of international mobility become, the greater the likelihood that the distance betweenthe cultures of immigrant communities and their host societies will be so large as to make assimilationiststrategies unworkable; second, the greater ability of immigrant groups to make use of communityforms of organisation and new media to maintain active cultural connections with their countriesof origin; and, third, the influence of human rights conceptions in delegitimating assimilationistconceptions.2. Melotti, 1997: 78-80.46