JHR 425 -CULTURAL ASSIMILATION VS. MULTICULTURALISM

P a g e | 1

CULTURAL ASSIMILATION VS. MULTICULTURALISM: COMPARATIVE POLICY

APPROACHES

1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Theoretical frameworks are used as the conceptual framework to examine cultural integration

and multiculturalism policy strategies. Theories that have been used in this analysis are social

identity theory, acculturation theory, and intergroup contact theory. Thus, social identity theory

holds that one’s identity includes categorization of people into in-group and out-group bases.

Familiarity with these theories assists in analysis of policies that affect migrants minorities such

as guestworkers and refugees. Integrative models assume that minorities will conform to the

dominant culture – in terms of conformity enhancing relationships, but undermining cultural

difference. On the other hand, multiculturalism recognizes cultural diversities as valid and

encourages pluralism – but to some extent this purportedly weakens societal cohesion. These

tensions are expandable from the theoretical foundations of the study and offer standards to

assess such conflicts. Social identity theory also points out potential threats to personal identity

which assimilate policies may contain. Acculturation theory looks at bidirectional occurring

between dominant and non-dominant people – mindful of both inclusion and absorption.

According to the intergroup contact theory, there is a possibility of developing cohesiveness

P a g e | 2

amongst different groups in a society. Thus, theories reveal psycho-social aspects of an

individual as well as interactions between communities that policies mediate.

theoretical models remains a crucial necessity for proper policy making and assessment.

a. Defining assimilation and multiculturalism

The contrast between assimilation and multiculturalism is one of the theories that can be used to

explain the interaction between societies. Integration is the process whereby minority groups

gradually assimilate to the orientation, beliefs, practices and other aspects of the host or majority

culture. The assimilationist model presumes that it is the identity of the subordinate culture that

must change and should strive to merge with the dominant culture. This approach has been

criticized by multiculturalism theorists who pointed out that it is unfair to expect the minorities

to shed of their cultural identities given the historical relations of domination between the

dominant and the marginalized ethnic groups. On the other hand, multiculturalism is an ideology

and policy concept that encourages support, preservation, and even celebration of cultural

diversity in society by embracing and valuing cultural differences in the sphere of public life.

Unlike assimilation theory, a multicultural framework encourages cultural maintenance and

intercultural relationship to ensure social integration.

P a g e | 3

The forceful enlargement of diversity and its organization remains an important issue of

continuing discussion in academia and policy-making circles, as does the fundamental question

of integration and its meaning. Accommodation views stress processes of formation of national

identity as acceptance of dominant national framework of reference by immigrants and ethnic

minorities. Skeptics argue that assimilation paradigms de-humanize minorities by not

recognizing their traditions, histories and identities as valid as that of the dominant culture. In

response, some of the civic integration polices of citizenship and immigration in some of the

fundamentally divergent views of equality, citizenship, nationality, and the cultural entitlements

of minorities. The discourses about these concepts therefore reflect core and continuing

problematic within the areas of assimilation and multiculturalism.

b. Historical evolution of integration theories

The idea of how immigrants are incorporated into society has changed throughout the years from

assimilationist views prevalent in the early twentieth century to more complex multicultural and

intercultural concepts. In the early twentieth century, the United States promoted assimilationist

policies based on the belief that immigrants had to discard all their cultural accoutrements and

embrace Anglo-American norms and identities in order to become American. This straight-line

assimilation paradigm portrayed a one-way process in which minority groups, shed their

P a g e | 4

languages, traditions and other cultural and ethnic features to conform to the WHITE Anglo-

Saxon Protestant mode. Still, the assimilation theory meant that, while some people might

maintain their ethnic distinctiveness through spatial and social separation in mid-century, this

was only seen as a temporary stage on the path toward absorption in the next generation.

Contrary to these Linear presuppositions, segment ed assimilation theory accepted such varied

consequences, as upward mobility together with the permanent retention of the BI-cultural status.

Contemporary theorists now emphasize multilateral interaction processes with the

symbiosis. In conclusion, theoretical perspectives have been moving from the initial emphasis on

assimilation in the Anglo-American manner to more fluid and mutual processes of integration

where both unity and difference meet.

c. Key debates in cultural diversity management

One of the most crucial issues arising from the management of cultural diversity is centered on

theoretical difference about cultural integration or multiculturalism as the direction of public

policy. This is a belief that a single national culture and value system must be accepted by

everyone, including minorities, to foster order even if this means eradicating some of the cultural

attributes. On the other hand, multiculturalist approaches hold that diversity is good and that

minority cultures should be preserved. These foundational differences have contributed to

P a g e | 5

divergent policy frameworks. Accommodationists promote integrationist policies which aim at

assimilating minorities into dominant organizational structures and cultures, expecting that they

will inevitably assimilate. For instance, while France officially denies racism, it works to

maintain a singular French culture. On the other hand, multiculturalists advocate pluralist

policies, which affirm cultural subgroups and respect cultural differences. For example, the

Canadian government also encourages the maintenance of Quebec’s unique French-speaking

culture while at the same time promoting the Canadian identity. Opposing theoretical

the expense of cohesion. This foundational debate provides the lens by which policymakers view

assimilation or multiculturalism as a problem to be solved or as a diverse success to be

embraced. Their position is likely to reflect certain ideas about the nature of the nation – whether

P a g e | 6

d. Sociological perspectives on identity and belonging

to sociologists for years. By the same token, symbolic interactionism posits that identity arises

from social interactions and the significance that is placed on the reactions that are provided by

other people. The identity also involves membership groupings like gender; ethnicity, social

class, and nationality. Social constructionism has it that such social categories are not inherent

but are constructed through social processes, language and power. Phenomenological sociology

is primarily concerned with the manner in which people give meaning to their social reality.

From this point of view, belonging is found in the groups and places which embrace us and value

us. All these sociological lenses are useful for shedding light on policy discussions regarding

assimilation versus multiculturalism. Accommodationist strategies force minorities to adapt and

embrace the dominant cultures and standards within the society. But this potentially erases

be properly socialized or develop positive self-images if they experience prejudice,

discrimination, and diminished control of resources and opportunities as compared to dominant

groups. Any policy seeking to promote diversity, belonging and unity should thus link

recognition of group identity with strategies for correcting past exclusion. Anthropological

perspectives of how individuals build and perceive their social self and citizenship can enrich

policy strategies regarding multicultural and immigration policies. Thus, the state can support

P a g e | 7

pluralism and respect for all citizens without the policy of assimilation or exclusion based on

race, ethnicity, language, religion or nationality.

e. Nationalism and citizenship theories

The principle of nationalism and various theories of citizenship have significantly shaped the

policy management and attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism. Namely, the

countries that adopted the civic nationalism and jus soli citizenship models, which are based on

shared political values and territorial birthright, have tried to implement the official

to preserve their cultural identity. However, in European societies like Germany that practices

Volk nationalism which presupposes ethnic and linguistic similarities, naturalization processes

that demands proof of cultural change demonstrate assimilationist integration expectation from

immigrants before they can be granted citizenship. In different liberal Western democracies,

divergent visions of what it means to be a nation and who is entitled to membership influence

major contrasts in immigrant integration policy systems concerning acculturation. Whereas the

theory of assimilation in the past described a straightforward process of immigrants’ absorption

into a dominant culture, current theories acknowledge the existence of multiple integration

trajectories influenced by the ideas of nationalism and mechanisms of obtaining citizenship. The

way in which citizenship rights are made contingent upon the assimilation of cultural norms adds

P a g e | 8

a political dimension to identity and makes the process of immigration even more challenging.

Since migration worldwide fosters cultural diversification, positive policies will require the

transformation of nationalist paradigms and citizenship systems towards pluralist and democratic

models that embrace diverse national identities. Thus, the interaction of theories of nation-state

membership and citizenship acquisition poses profound questions concerning minority people’s

human rights, socioeconomic opportunities, and political incorporation. Comparing integration

policies based on conceptually defined nationalism and access to actual citizenship may reveal

superiority’ attitudes and suggest that there are flaws in the cultural minorities, which can be

‘fixed’. Studies in psychology prove that forced integration leads to stress and social exclusion.

The minorities are forced to assimilate the mainstream culture, at the same time they have to

endure discrimination from the same culture. This can lead to poor mental health, low self-

esteem, and weak commitment to the fabric of society.

On the other hand, multiculturalism acknowledges and embraces minority differences and lets

the various groups maintain their cultural profiles. However, as critics have pointed out, it can

reify differences and create cultural stereotyping, that is, cultures are portrayed as homogeneous

and static, rather than dynamic. Ideological multi-culturalisms are criticized for fostering

separation between the cultural groups, reducing interstitial contact, and suppressing feelings of

P a g e | 9

nationalism. Thus, if pushed to the extreme, funding cultural festivals or native language

instruction could solidify divisions. There are also financial prudential reasons stating that

provision of special services to minorities leads to biasing.

Critics have continued to argue on whether nation-building policies should support dominant

2. ASSIMILATION POLICIES IN PRACTICE

In the process of political integration, governments have always resorted to assimilation policies

to incorporate the minorities into the mainstream culture. These policies aim at assimilating

immigrants and other discriminated groups through force or persuasion to adopt the dominant

group’s norms, language, and practices. Actually, there is a variation in assimilation policies in

regards to practice in different settings. For instance, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the

US government set up Native American boarding schools that severed indigenous children from

their families in an attempt to assimilate them into American culture. These schools prohibited

students to speak Native languages and practice their cultures in an effort to remove their

P a g e | 16

In United States Native American youth were taken from families and placed in government or

church operated schools with processes that were deliberate attempts at ‘kill the Indian, save the

man’. Children’s hair was cut, traditional clothing prohibited, and native languages suppressed in

forceful efforts to erase cultural imperialism. Lest the reader think that similar objectives were

only operative in the United States, it is important to note that Canadian residential schools

served a similar purpose. In Australia, the government formulated policies where the mixed-race

youth was to be bred out of existence. These systems were all about ethnic removal rather than

information and at the same time focus on such fundamental values. Nevertheless, the

application of substantive multiculturalism across institutions entails broad challenges. In

practice, even if the curricula are advertised as integrationist, they continue to marginalize

minorities. There are also still significant race and ethnic disparities. In the end, despite being

presented in the current context as mechanisms for the construction of an inclusive state for all,

public education systems are a means for forced acculturation at the expense of cultural

difference. Addressing these multifaceted histories continues to be a critical component of reform

work.

P a g e | 17

f. Case studies of forced assimilation

late nineteenth to mid twentieth century gives a very tragic example of forced assimilation policy

and its devastating effects on minority groups. Starting from 1879, the US government started

rounding up thousands of Native American children and taking them away from their homes to

attend various boarding schools which forbade them to speak their native languages as well as

practice their culture and spirituality. The stated aim was to ‘civilize’ them and thus erase their

Indigenous status. This forced assimilation had severely negative effects on the psyche of the

assimilated natives and their future generations. There are higher levels of poverty, alcoholism,

domestic abuse, and suicide among Native communities attributable to collective historical

trauma.

The Stolen Generations policy of Australia was also towards the assimilation of Aboriginal

people by the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families. Adoption on the other

lifelong social and emotional trauma. National apologies have been made in several countries,

but the scars are still fresh.

Although not as systematically applied on the federal level as the AIGS, the Indian Residential

School system in Canada, lasting from the 1880s to 1996, also served as a tool to forcibly

P a g e | 18

assimilate young Indigenous children. To assimilate indigenous children into Canadians and

‘erase the Indian from their midst’ more than 150000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit children were

forcibly taken from their homes Without the parents’ permission, then sent to schools

characterized by diseases, inadequate living conditions, starvation, physical/sexual abuse, as well

as high death rates. This immense trauma disrupted the passing of Indigenous language, cultural

and knowledge systems from one generation to another. Reconciliation efforts continue today.

Some of the best examples of multicultural policy are the provisions for constitutional or

legislative protection of minority rights, public support and funding of cultural activities and

education, exemptions for religious/cultural reasons, such as matters of dress code, multi –ethnic

curricula and employment opportunity, policies on dual citizenship, translations of government

documents and provision of services in multiple languages, and affirmative action or quota

system for the disadvantaged groups. Australia, Canada, Sweden and Singapore are considered

as countries that have well-developed multicultural policies though they are not similar. Those

opposed to multiculturalism assert that it undermines a cohesive national culture or that it

provides a legitimacy to the oppression of minorities or other non-liberal values, while its

supporters claimed that it is crucial for fairness and social harmony.

P a g e | 19

The following is the comparative analysis of assimilation and multiculturalism policy

approaches: Some of the issues that minority groups have to face include; political power and

representation, economic disparities, labor market status, discrimination, mental health, self-

esteem of youth in minorities, passing on of cultural practices, and social cohesion at the national

level. Actual and proposed policy tools in the matter of education, language rights, affirmative

action, financing of cultural events, legal exceptions and immigration can be measured by these

points. Although the global research in this area indicates that multicultural policy offers

and race. It is a marked departure from the Anglo-Saxon expectation that immigrants shed their

cultures and languages in favor of the new society and embraces a cultural mosaic in which the

newcomers are actively encouraged to retain their individuality while participating in the social

and economic life of the country. This policy is different from the assimilation policy prevalent

in countries such as the United States where the culture of the majority is normally expected to

be embraced.

There are several dimensions that are associated with multiculturalism policy in Canada. First, it

supports ethnic group cultural events, language tuition and the provision of centers for

immigrants. Second, the policy seeks equal access to opportunities to eliminate factors that

hinder the minority groups from enjoying full political, social, and economic rights as provided

P a g e | 20

in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Third, the policy requires culturally

appropriate behaviors in organizations like health care, education, and criminal justice systems.

In this context, multiculturalism does not only mean the acknowledgement of difference, but the

transformation of systems in a pluralistic manner.

question is comprehensive enough to redress historical wrongs inflicted on some disadvantaged

b. Australian approach to cultural diversity

The case of Australia has shown that the country has come up with a different approach to the

management of cultural diversity that is a departure from the two something something model.

While under assimilation, immigrants are forced to shed their cultural practices and embrace the

Anglo culture dominant in Australia, integration allows the minority groups to maintain their

cultural practices while integrating into the larger Australian society. Still, when it comes to

cultural diversity, Australia does not go overboard by promoting cultural separatism often linked

to robust multiculturalism policies. The main principles for Australia include civic obligations to

respect commonly accepted laws and values and cultural rights to preserve diversity, the

P a g e | 21

representation of multiculturalism in national symbols and narratives, the equality of opportunity

or access to eliminate prejudice in institutional structures, and a reasonable degree of

assimilation and participation in societal institutions.

as opposed to segregation. Another example is the Australian citizenship test where the potential

where all citizens have equal rights despite their diversities. Some opinions may remain as to

whether Australia has got the blend of integration and fragmentation just right, but this has

introduced a more complex approach to multiculturalism that is different from the assimilationist

or libertarian models.

c. Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has always been a multicultural society where people of different color,

race, and nationality lived together. After the Second World War, large-scale immigration from

former colonies and the Commonwealth brought significant ethnic and cultural change,

P a g e | 22

especially to England’s towns and cities. Official government policies of the 1950s and 1960s

were assimilationist in nature because of the assumption that the immigrants would integrate into

the existing British cultural framework. However, by the late 1960s it was evident that

assimilationist strategies were ineffective, as demonstrated by racially charged violence and

prejudice. This led to the emergence of multicultural policies that were aimed at embracing

Britain’s diversity with a view to creating citizenship and common bond. Some major activities

were passing new laws against racial discrimination, offering state fund to support community-

continues to be debates on how best to manage diversity and maintain social cohesion. Despite

this there have been setbacks in the form of ethnically motivated riots in the cities in the 1980s

and religiously inspired terrorist attacks in the 2000s, which have initiated periods of backlash

P a g e | 23

d. Integration policies in the Netherlands and Sweden

approaching immigrant integration and multicultural policies in the last decades. In the post-war

era, Sweden adopted a multicultural approach in which immigrants were expected to retain their

cultural traditions, norms, and tongues. This was accompanied by liberal social welfare policies

that sought to integrate immigrants into the Swedish society economically as soon as possible. At

the same time, the Netherlands practiced a policy model more oriented to the integration of

immigrants into the Dutch society, expecting them to become similar to the Dutch people. From

the beginning of the 1990s, the Netherlands radically changed to a more multicultural and

pluralist models, which encouraged ethnic diversity. This included the passing of laws that

allowed for dual citizenship and provision of government grants to special language and cultural

classes for immigrants. However, Sweden has done the opposite and reduced some of its

diversity. Even though Sweden was once among the first to embrace multiculturalism as part of

its official policy, its capacity to continue supporting this approach seems to have been

threatened by problems such as ethnic enclave in Stockholm and Malmo. The Dutch case

therefore points to a need to move from assimilation as a radical process that appears to exclude

immigrants to a more inclusive approach embracing diversity. Further studies are needed to offer

comparative evaluations of the effects of various multicultural policy instruments during the last

P a g e | 24

few decades in Sweden and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, versatility and subtlety, which reflect

modern social conditions, seem to be of paramount importance.

e. Multicultural education initiatives

Schools are particularly central to the process of either inclusion or the acceptance of diversity in

a given society. Instead of assimilation of culturally diverse students to the dominant culture,

multicultural education programs aim at supporting such students. Such activities may vary from

one grade level to another, nevertheless, the common goal of these activities is to promote

communication, conduct and the requirements of students that may come from different

backgrounds. Flexible methods of teaching and learning benefit the learners in gaining equal

education. Further, schools can support intergroup dialogue by providing occasions in which

students can engage in conversations about race, culture and identity. This way, it is possible to

guide the students to share their experiences and, in this way, learn from one another, rejecting

prejudice that was formed. In addition to curricula, segregation and disproportionate disciplining

of minority students entail analysis of admission policies, zoning, tracking placements and

behavioral expectations that may be attributed to cultural incompatibility. Mainly, schools should

focus on the prevention of the systems that affect the minority subgroups in a negative way and

thereby reduce barriers that such groups face. However, multicultural education not only fosters

P a g e | 25

equal opportunities for all students but also develops their intercultural skills to engage with

diversity outside the classroom. It prepares graduates for working in a diverse environment in a

world that is becoming a global village and within the US itself due to immigration. In

conclusion, multicultural education includes many-faceted approaches involving curricular

changes, teaching-learning processes, and structural frameworks to affirm diverse cultural

heritages and provide equal chances and opportunities for learning in various school contexts.

This is different from assimilationist strategies that do not recognize cultural diversity or work to

minorities to a more dominant mainstream culture, multiculturalism was put forward as a policy

strategy whose goal was the public acknowledgment and respect of ethnic, cultural and religious

diversity. However, critics have pointed out that over-emphasis on minority religious rights such

as exemptions to otherwise binding laws, financial support to faith-based schools, or permission

to display religious symbols in public spheres violates principles of secularism, erode social

solidarity, and marginalize moderate voices. Laws on religious freedom therefore present policy

makers with dilemmas in how to weigh the interests of one religion against other societal values

and rights of persons.

Some multicultural theorists propose that subgroup rights should be acknowledged, for instance,

the right of Sikh male employees to wear turbans and bear ceremonial swords or the right of

P a g e | 32

and multicultural policy take up. However, this is the essence of civic incorporation that

determines whether or not immigrants can make demands, align themselves with the other

marginalized groups, and attain representation to effect legal reforms. The difference from

assimilation agendas is the collective pressure from within mainstream political channels by the

integrated. Therefore, comparing the demographic weight of immigrants and the actual

representation of this population in the parliament allows for identifying what cultural

compromises are to be expected from the state. It also anticipates possibility for future claims-

All in all, the degree of real political integration and civil liberties defines whether states regard

the status attributed to immigrants and potential cultural futures.

The strategies employed by various societies towards the integration of immigrants/ethnic

minorities and the celebration of multiculturalism affect inter-group relations and social

cohesiveness. Accommodation policies discourage the minority group to rid of its cultural

practices and instead embrace those of the dominant group in such facets as language, cultural

beliefs and behaviors in order to be fully integrated into the society. In theory this results into

increased social integration since comparability between the different groups is enhanced.

P a g e | 33

However, forced assimilation always leads to resentment from minority groups that believe their

rights to self-identification are violated, and they continue to be discriminated against or have

implicit biases even if the assimilate to the dominant culture. This can lead to increased tensions

between the minorities and the rest of the population. On the other hand, multicultural policies

respect the ability of these minorities to exercise their cultural integrity by maintaining their

distinctiveness and proactively offer public funds for the purposes of cultural diversity. The aim

is to create a united national identity that is based on the recognition of diversity. However,

increase animosity, prejudice or discrimination. Policy consequences for multicultural integration

also likely depend on aspects such as immigrants’ duration of stay, income, and race and religion

compared to the dominant group. The main idea is to note that policymaker beliefs with regards

In the modern society, many countries face the question of how to address the issue of cultural

diversity in their countries. Some advocate for integrationist policies in an attempt to assimilate

minorities into the mainstream culture, while others support the idea of cultural diversity, and

P a g e | 34

aim at ensuring that minorities retain their cultures. These policy approaches have more concrete

implications regarding social inclusion, economic activities, discrimination and the like. One

conflict within this discussion is the conflict between assimilation and acculturation or

integration of indigenous cultures. People who want to maintain certain aspects of their culture,

customs, language, or religion do not assimilate fully. But not changing at all can exclude

specific groups from economic upward movement, social contacts, or voting rights.

languages in schools which was the case in the US can foster resentment. Cultural apartheid

factor particularly in pluralistic societies is flexibility over time as demographic characteristics

and perceptions change.

Ascertaining the comparative costs and gains of divergent policy pathways continues to be

relevant for states facing tensions between unity and diversity. It is important to note that

assimilation leads to the erosion of cultural capital within globalized knowledge- based

policymakers have to compare integration outcomes from the extreme end of the radical

P a g e | 35

preservationist options to the forced assimilation strategies before arriving at the best medium

strategies. There are no perfect solutions, however, comparative evidence on the impacts can

inform culture-centered reforms for the enhancement of national and community resilience.

Comparing the effects of assimilationist and multiculturalist policies in the long run shows subtle

variations across the national and local levels. Accommodationist strategies that aim at

assimilation of immigrants into the existing mainstream cultural standards may achieve a more

but experience higher invention and economic growth in the following periods. For instance,

economic growth and increased competitiveness of such cities as Toronto or London could be at

least partially linked to the diverse skills and viewpoints of people of different cultures living

there. However, the segregation of immigrants under pluralist policies could also lead to

intercultural conflicts that fester over time if groups separate themselves. The critical factor that

may underscore the successful implementation of long-term societal inclusiveness and shared

national identity under either policy regime appears to be in opening up of cultural exchange and

connection between various cultural groups to foster intercultural understanding. If immigrants

living in isolation strengthen homeland cultural bonds and second-generation youth cannot

assimilate their dualisms, fragmented sub-nationalisms could disrupt the social cohesiveness

P a g e | 36

irrespective of it. Quantitatively capturing such long-run variables as intermarriage rates,

residential segregation by ethnicity, income mobility across ethnic groups, and changes in social

attitudes towards racism or ethnocentric views helps better understand the multifaceted,

comparative effects of the assimilationist versus multiculturalist approaches. Like there is no

one-size-fits-all for integration outcomes, the demographic changes and social repercussions

taking place over decades are far more expressive than the socioeconomic differences contained

in raw statistical data that often set the policy tone for the short term. Therefore, moderate and

are concerned with the cultural integration versus multiculturalism dilemma. Accommodation

models promote the assimilation of the minorities to the majority language, culture, and behavior

for integration purposes. On the other hand, multicultural approaches embrace cultural diversity

and embraces cultural differences within the context of the civil society. Each has advantages but

is also associated with drawbacks. Moving forward, the best way may be to incorporate the

positive aspects from both styles and avoid the weaknesses inherent in each.

Several dynamics present themselves as problematic for both assimilation and multiculturalism

initiatives. The very acts of globalization and movements of people, cultures, and ideas across

national borders render the idea of a single national identity even more problematic.

Technological advancement opens up opportunities for specified minorities to maintain unique

P a g e | 37

linguistic, social and cultural identity. The youth embrace more flexible styles of identification

that are not limited by ethnic or national classifications. In this connection, it may not be possible

to continue with forced assimilation or differential treatment of the ascribed groups as valid

goals.

with the law. The general aspects of integration can be addressed by reducing discrimination and

Various future policy directions should also recognize that the pace of change today is incredibly

fast. Continued migration and changes in demographic structure imply that ethnic compositions

within nations are likely to remain in a state of flux. Hence, the nature of governance will be to

balance and adjust the methods and practices as situations change constantly. Instead,

policymakers should pay attention to other indicators which include immigration levels but also

economic mobility, education levels, health, politics and the rest, to see the gaps that are faced by

certain categories of people. Efforts to extend assistance to other more vulnerable groups

alongside targeted measures can help foster better understanding among different groups.

P a g e | 38

superior strategies for nurturing integrated but diverse societies. When the government backs its

policies with human dignity, equity, and inclusion, diversity is a source of national power.

a. Rise of right-wing populism and anti-immigration sentiment

Since 2010s, many western democracies have experienced emergence of right-wing populist

movements, whose primary political agendas include nationalism and anti-immigration policies.

These movements relate to concerns of nationalism, jobs, and demographic shifts where there is

high immigration. Right-wing populist parties reduce policy problems to the level of immigrants

This populist shift poses significant threats for liberal democratic systems that are based on

values of multiculturalism, pluralism, and the protection of minorities. While right-wing

populists are becoming more successful in elections, they undermine the society’s support for

multiculturalism-based immigrant-friendly policies. Through their speeches, they contribute to

xenophobic sentiments and establish exclusionary concepts of the national unity. As a result,

mainstream parties experience a retreat from their previous commitments on immigrant

integration policies and shift towards more punitive approach regarding asylum seekers and

irregular immigrants. In the absence of authentic political opposition and political actors that

uphold humanitarian values, moderate majorities may slowly begin to accept the policy

rationalities of right-wing populism.

P a g e | 39

In the future, it will be necessary to advocate the principles and examples of leadership for the

protection of diversity and social solidarity. Multicultural policies must ensure betterment of the

standard of living and status of immigrants as the results reflect and garner public appreciation.

Mainstream parties must also reconnect with those voters feeling alienated by the effect of

globalization and technological changes. This presupposes that rhetoric must be welcoming that

do not exclude people due to the cultural paranoia that such appeals elicit; this excludes nativist

populism. In the end, the requirement of confronting right-populism entails constructing a new

b. Transnationalism and dual identities in a globalized world

cease to apply. These migrants move back and forth between their places of settlement and their

area of origin and create what might be described as liminal subjectivities, which are hybrid of

both the host and home country cultures. Second generation immigrants also seem to assimilate

their cultures of origin with those of the receiving countries, thus experiencing identity crises.

The politics of transnationalism creates problems for the policies of assimilation and questions

the correct way of integrating the multicultural cross-border citizens. However, it also

emphasizes the desire for additional multicultural policies that acknowledge the possibility of

mixed races. However, populist nationalism across the West at the moment undermines these

pluralistic policy approaches by returning to essentialized and reactionary notions of national

belonging. Concerns ranging from voting from migrants to recognition of dual citizenship raise

P a g e | 40

such tensions between transnationalism and nationalist policy into focus. London, New York and

Sydney are today complex global cities in which diaspora networks across the world contribute

to changing demographic and cultural configurations that complicate integration models. This is

so because future policy directions involve the search for reasonable accommodation between

the principle of being able to switch between both identities and the need to maintain social

cohesion. Preventing the outright assimilation or ethnic apartheid models of social organization

along ethnic lines is still essential. As more and more people in different countries are

and establish relationships in the modern society. While in previous decades, cultural integration

was largely defined by people’s co-location and face-to-face communication, the modern

interconnected world enables people to cross geographical and other barriers. This relatively new

digital environment has its implications when it comes to policy comparisons with regard to the

approach taken to cultural integration or diversity. On one hand, through such platforms people

with similar interests, values, or culture can gather, which can lead to positive interactions and

understanding between people from two different countries separated by thousands of

kilometers. Similarly, the case of the Black Lives Matter movement shows that digital media can

quickly galvanize social action and advocate for oppressed groups in the face of oppressive

power relations. However, opponents have claimed that the filter bubbles and ideological echo

P a g e | 41

chambers that are supported by algorithms on popular sites also contribute to further societal

segmentation and polarization in terms of ideology, political, or cultural affiliation. Given that

the online interactions are increasingly replacing physical locations as the environments for

socialization of the youth and building the sense of multicultural identity and belonging, it is

important for the policy makers to consider the effects of digital integration for the future

construction of the social fabric. Potentially progressive policy directions could consider

collaboration with tech industry giants for well-thought-out UI/UX and cultivating norms that are

The globalization of the world further brings many practical concerns for policy implementation

the ongoing postcolonial, multicultural society.

It is also expected that, as the climate changes, it will lead to more extreme weather conditions,

and this will lead to migration as people move away from areas that have become uninhabitable

or areas where it is impossible to support their livelihoods. Migration resulting from climate

change leads to cultural integration and multiculturalism policy questions for the affected

countries and communities. Given climate modelling that anticipates rise in environmental

stressors in the future decades, societies will have to confront challenges about how and whether