522190

research-article2014

JOS0010.1177/1440783314522190Journal of SociologyPakulski: Confusions about multiculturalism

Article

Confusions about
multiculturalism

Journal of Sociology
2014, Vol. 50(1) 2336
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1440783314522190
jos.sagepub.com

Jan Pakulski

University of Tasmania, Australia

Abstract
Australian multiculturalism an integrative policy strategy aiming at managing cultural diversity
was adopted as government policy in Australia in the 1970s. In its original rendition, Australian
multiculturalism was embedded in classical sociological theory, integrative, reciprocal, egalitarian
and respectful of the majority. However, it has also been confused with ethnic pluralism and
assimilationist melting pot approaches, and these confusions are apparent in the recent European
and domestic criticisms. The article outlines the principles of Australian multiculturalism, identifies
its theoretical foundations, and highlights some of the popular confusions about its meaning, focus
and objectives.

Keywords
ethnicity, immigration, integration, multiculturalism, pluralism

Multiculturalism is under critical scrutiny, if not open attack, especially in Europe.

Critics question its reality, sustainability and desirability. The harshest critics portray
multicultural policies either as harmful social engineering that tolerates unassimilable
immigrants and ethnic ghettos, or pooh-pooh it as a nave ideology (Multikulti)
attributed either to the liberal middle classes or politically alienated elites. They
blame it for mal-integration of some immigrant and refugee groups, for encouraging
social and cultural separatism, and even for the hostility of some immigrants to their
host societies. Perhaps most importantly, multiculturalism is blamed for undermining
national cohesion and promoting social segmentation. This segmentation, critics add,
reduces social capital (national cohesion and trust) and is experienced by some nationals as a threat to their national identity.1 Supporters of multiculturalism are criticised as

Corresponding author:
Jan Pakulski, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Email: Jan.Pakulski@utas.edu.au

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

24

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

starry-eyed idealists, unrealistic liberals and/or socially disconnected elites, oblivious to

the numerous pathologies that allegedly accompany mass immigrations and multicultural policies.
Moreover, while in the past criticisms came mainly from a handful of conservatives
and radicals, today critics of multiculturalism find increasingly wide audiences and
prominent champions, including conservative political leaders (David Cameron,
Nicholas Sarkozy), conservative liberals (Angela Merkel) and disenchanted liberals
(Thelo Sarazin), and they enrol supporters in all ideological camps. Somewhat surprisingly, these criticisms reverberate even in Australia, the country where multiculturalism
identified with bi-partisan policies of assisted integration and tolerant cultural pluralism has been endorsed by all governments since the 1970s, accepted by the public at
large, and widely regarded as a success.2
These new waves of criticism are, I argue, based on confusion about the identity,
goals, principles and consequences of multiculturalism, especially Australian multiculturalism. For a start, some criticisms (like those by the German Chancellor Angela
Merkel who announced that Multikulti ist Kaput) seem to be directed at a caricature
of multiculturalism that bears little resemblance to the original concept and strategy
forged in Australia. The added irony is that many critics attribute to multiculturalism
those harmful effects that are, in fact, associated with the major rival of multiculturalism assimilationism. This is hardly surprising considering the fact that the European
critics of multiculturalism come from countries that have never embraced multiculturalism (assisted integration + cultural pluralism), and have instead practised liberal
assimilationism.3
This does not mean, of course, that the European (and some Australian) criticisms of
immigration and settlement policies are hollow. Mass migrations, especially the sudden
and uncontrolled mass flows of immigrants and refugees such as those experienced by
Greece, Italy, France and Great Britain and the accompanying failures to integrate
these new immigrants (economically, socially, politically) do produce social problems,
including dangerous social pathologies. Such problems and pathologies of mal-integration ethno-religious isolationism (ghettoisation), ethno-racial exclusion and stratification, communal conflicts, ethno-specific crime are real and serious. But (1) they
cannot be pinned on multiculturalism, unless the original meaning of the term is distorted; and (2) they look very much like the side effects and the unintended consequences
of (failed) assimilationism the major rival of multiculturalism.
The pathologies that accompany such migrations especially those triggered by conflicts and natural disasters have been exacerbated in todays Europe by three factors:
the recent intensification of uncontrolled migrations, due to labour market liberalisation
within the EU and destabilisation outside the EU;4 the Great Recession and the accompanying high unemployment and financial austerities; and the political mobilisation of
nationalistic movements hostile to foreigners. In these circumstances, immigrants and
foreigners become the proverbial usual suspects and favourite scapegoats to be
blamed for most social ills. But such ills, including the widely publicised pathologies of
mal-integration, have little to do with multiculturalism a policy and strategy that has
always stressed social cohesion as its main goal and non-discriminatory integration as
the means. This is the main but not the only confusion addressed here. Addressing it

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

25

Pakulski

involves, first, a clarification of the original meaning of multiculturalism, a brief outline of the original principles of multiculturalism, as adopted in Australia, followed by a
short reminder of the social-scientific foundations of the multicultural vision and strategy. This is an introduction to an overview of confusions and misconceptions marring
the current debates about multiculturalism in Europe and Australia.

Multiculturalism a vague and contested concept

Multiculturalism is an antonym of monoculturalism. Its etymological meaning is identical to cultural pluralism a view that modern national cultures are composites of many
ethno-specific cultures, regional and generational subcultures. This recognition of cultural
heterogeneity and diversity is usually combined with approval of them as positive and
desirable, or at least normal. Some even see multiculturalism as an ideology, that is, an
outlook that promotes social and cultural diversity, and advocates tolerance of cultural
differences. While such interpretations are rare, tolerance of cultural diversity has been a
central feature of modern liberal ideology and, in this sense, tolerant cultural pluralism did
become a popular creed among the metropolitan middle classes in advanced societies.
Multiculturalism has also featured prominently in the recent culture wars between the
advocates of liberalism and neo-conservatism, the latter critical of, if not openly hostile to,
the concept of cultural pluralism and the sentiments behind it (e.g. Chapman, 2010). This
implication of multiculturalism in the ideological debates about the politics of identity,
politics of difference, politics of recognition and even the widely debated clash of
civilizations and localised culture wars confused the public at large.
Confusions come also from the proliferation of meanings. In a descriptive sense, multiculturalism means simply a socio-demographic and socio-cultural diversity; in a normative sense, it means approval of such diversity; in an ideological sense, it means
promotion of cultural diversity, tolerance of diversity and the policies that supports both.
Critics, by contrast, often skew the meaning and use of multiculturalism, making it
synonymous with the superficial celebration of cultural difference for its own sake
(Multikulti), and turning multiculturalism into a caricature of its original meaning.
Moreover, as noted by most observers, the substance of multicultural vision and the
content of policies in Australia have been evolving, and their champions have often kept
this vision and strategy deliberately vague, to maximise political flexibility (e.g. Jupp,
2002; Tarvan, 2012). Yet, in spite of this semantic evolution and inevitable conceptual
stretch, Australian multiculturalism seems to have maintained its core meaning and preserved its original goals and principles (e.g. Bowen, 2011a, 2011b).

The core principles of Australian multiculturalism

Contrary to many criticisms, Australian multiculturalism was not a product of idealistic
liberal reformers, and its key goal was not a mere celebration of cultural diversity. Rather,
it was a pragmatic strategy for dealing with the problems posed by a post-WWII mass
inflow to Australian of non-British immigrants. Its key aim was the smooth and effective
settlement and integration of these immigrants; the problem was a failure of assimilation
policies to secure such an effective integration.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

26

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

The concept was forged in the Australian (and in a slightly different form, in the
Canadian) reformist movement of the 1960s and 1970s.5 The Australian advocates of
multicultural reforms aimed to correct what appeared as dysfunctions of the past policies: securing the integration of immigrants from non-British sources; eliminating the
discriminatory (White Australia) policies that guided the post-Second World War immigration and settlement programmes; and preventing the massive waste of human capital
(education and skills) that accompanied the absorption of the post-Second World War
immigration wave. Assimilation policies (assimilationism) succeeded in providing the
unskilled and semi-skilled overseas labour force for the rapidly developing Australian
economy (especially in construction and manufacturing), but they also generated some
problems of mal-integration, ethno-racial discrimination and dangerous ethno-racial
exclusion. Perhaps most importantly, these assimilationist strategies caused a massive
waste of the human capital brought by many European immigrants a point raised by
many sociological studies conducted in the post-Second World War decades.6
The alternative strategy was proposed by a group of (mainly ANU) academics and
social activists, subsequently supported by both Labour and Liberal politicians. It
involved a much greater tolerance for persisting cultural diversity in lifestyles and identities of immigrants, and was labelled multiculturalism and cultural pluralism to stress
this greater tolerance.
However, from the proverbial day one, multiculturalism promoted as its main goal
social cohesion (the outcome concept) and social integration (the process concept).
The contrast with past goals and policies was clearly drawn in the early statements:
Until quite recently there was an expectation in both Government and the community that
[settlers] should be assimilated as quickly as possible. Gradually this gave way to a general
policy of integration which accepted the principle of cultural diversity, and which acknowledged
that the entry of migrants into Australian society necessarily involved adjustment in that society,
as well as in the outlook of the immigrants themselves. More recently there has been concern
that cultural diversity should occur in a way which is consistent with maintaining the
cohesiveness of Australian society. (APIC, 1977: 53)

These goals and principles were elaborated in the subsequent Brown, Blue, Green and
White papers and repeated in recent ministerial statements.7 They included:
1. social cohesion understood as national integration that is, institutional arrangements for allocating resources and resolving conflicts;
2. equality of opportunity and access;
3. the freedom to choose and maintain ones own cultural identity understood as
the sense of belonging and attachment to a particular way of living; and
4. the social duty of shared responsibility for, commitment to and participation in
society. (AEAC, 1977: 3)8
None of these statements diminishes the emphasis on the integrative goal of Australian
multiculturalism, the importance of equity (fairness) as the main means of attaining integration (cohesion), the tolerance for cultural pluralism, and perhaps most importantly
the reciprocal nature of the multicultural policy.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

27

Pakulski

Theoretical foundations
The principles of multiculturalism were anchored in both social research and social theory. The results of research on immigrant adaptation most conducted from the interpretive-humanistic perspective sensitive to the immigrant experience formed the
springboard for criticism of assimilationism and its mal-integrative outcomes.
Sociological theory, in turn, especially its Durkheimian version, formed the theoretical
framework in which multicultural strategy was embedded.
The theoretical foundation of multiculturalism involves a notion that unity in diversity is a central goal of every modern society:
What we believe Australia should be working towards is not a oneness, but a unity, not a
similarity, but a composite, not a melting pot but a voluntary bond of dissimilar people sharing
a common political and institutional structure. (AEAC, 1977: 18)

This notion is central in Emile Durkheims (1933 [1893]) vision of modernisation that
involves progressive diversification: occupational division of labour, social differentiation, polytheism of values and diversification of social norms. The diversification,
as emphasised by Durkheim, occurs spontaneously in every modernising society, and
what is worth stressing does not undermine social cohesion. Progressive differentiation merely changes the nature of this cohesion (social solidarity) and the character of
social bonds. Both change from the bonds of similarity and conformism (mechanical),
to the bonds of interdependency and complementarity (organic). Thus the widening
socio-cultural diversity cannot be seen as a threat to national unity or a centrifugal
force weakening social cohesion. On the contrary, it is the source of specifically modern
social glue that replaces the old and no longer viable bonds of conformism. As the
Father of Multiculturalism (Malcolm Frasers term) Jerzy (George) Zubrzycki subsequently noted:
I found justification for this idea in Thomas Aquinas long ago, and in my sociological work,
particularly in the writings of Emile Durkheim. His ideas about integration, social cohesion,
the community as a force in the wider society, have had a profound impact on my thinking.
And this idea, I think, is really the foundation of multicultural philosophy as I understand it.
(quoted in Williams and Bond, 2013: 107)

The Durkheimian theoretical vision has also inspired five other aspects/principles of
Australian multiculturalism. First was the insistence on equity as the moral basis of
modern social solidarity. The second was the emphasis on identity as the key mediator
of conduct. The third principle reflected Durkheims dictum that social integration
requires regular social interaction participation in society or regular social engagement. The fourth concerned the role of intermediate bodies the key social adapters
to society at large. And the fifth pointed to the crucial role of state interventions in sustaining social cohesion. When translated into plain English, these principles simply state
that social unity in modern society has to be built on the moral foundation of fairness
(equity); that fairness means equal opportunity, equal access, but not necessarily equal
outcomes; that this sense of fairness underlies popular identifications and translates into

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

28

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

patriotic commitment; that the maintenance of this commitment requires regular social
interaction; that this interaction involves families, friendship circles, as well as local
ethnic communities; and, finally, that all these ingredients of social cohesion have to be
backed by government and the members of the host society. In general, the founders and
advocates of multiculturalism pointed out that while tolerant cultural pluralism has
always been a central feature of Australian society and culture, this pluralism needs more
deliberate and systematic cultivation.
The details of this cultivation, though, were never spelt out, doubtless in recognition
of the need for political and policy flexibility. This is why the foundational documents,
especially the Brown, Blue and White papers, contain some ambiguities and question
marks, and this is why multiculturalism while maintaining its four core principles
developed into different versions (Tarvan, 2012). The radicalised versions promoted not
only cultural pluralism but also some elements of structural pluralism, including not
only ethnic communities but also political organisations and even elements of legal
code. One must stress that even these radical interpretations did not question the overall
integrative goal of multiculturalism. But they accepted much wider diversity stretching
beyond the realm of culture, lifestyles and identities. If such radical multiculturalism
became the mainstream, and if it shaped governmental policies, multiculturalism could
be blamed for ethno-religious fragmentation, particularism and even separatism. But the
point is that the radical version of multiculturalism has never been embraced by Australian
governments or by the public at large. Proposals for legal pluralism or ethno-specific
parties, for example, have always been dismissed as unrealistic and/or incompatible with
the principles of national cohesion,9 though some elements of traditional Aboriginal
criminal law have been recognised in sentencing.
These points are important for three reasons. They correct the perception of multicultural strategies as an idealistic-moralistic quest, divorced from reality and devoid of theoretical foundations; they highlight the sober and pragmatic motivations of the founders
and advocates; and they underline the moderate integrative intentions and goals of the
multicultural strategies to which we must now turn.

Integrative multiculturalism
In fact, multiculturalism was originally designed to counter the symptoms of social
segmentation and exclusion, both generated as an unintended consequence by the
assimilationist strategies embraced by the post-Second World War Australian
governments.
There is a counter-intuitive element in this argument that requires clarification.
Assimilationism, understood as a strategy of integration through cultural and lifestyle
conformism with the majority, has never worked well. Instead of the expected smooth
adaptation through assimilation, it generated, especially among non-British immigrants,
socio-cultural exclusion and a sense of estrangement. Assimilationist pressures transformed into formidable barriers to social adaptation and integration by promoting the
view that full or proper integration requires not only shedding the cultural heritage of
origin, but also the conformist adoption of the norms and lifestyle of the majority, and
of an unqualified (vs. hyphenated) cultural identity. Multiculturalism, by contrast,

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

29

Pakulski

de-stigmatised cultural differences by insisting that they are normal, and that one can be
a good Australian without being a typical Australian.
Australian multiculturalism has also recognised that full integration is gradual, and
that its success depends on a sense of belonging. This sense of belonging develops
through families, neighbourhoods and friendship circles, as well as integrated religious
and ethnic groups and communities. Therefore multiculturalism has always aided such
integrative structures and supported their formation and maintenance not as the agents
of social segmentation and division, but as social adapters to broader national community.10 Consequently, ethnic and religious communities have been supported only in this
integrative role, in provision of the sense of belonging and in fostering broader social
engagement. They have been condemned when they engage in the cultivation of ethnic
or religious particularism or foster isolation.11
The integrative nature of multiculturalism has also been reflected in the selective
acceptance of traditions and cultural practices introduced by immigrants. Such acceptance, one should stress, has always been qualified by the according to the law, no
discrimination and no harm principles. Consequently, all forms of culturally specific
traditional discriminations, such as sexism, as well as harm-causing practices such as
genital mutilations, are banned. So are polygamy, forced marriages and all forms of violence, including family/communal violence in defence of honour.
Obviously, multiculturalism could not prevent harmful practices and ethnic mal-integration. However, such pathologies have always been condemned as violations of multicultural principles. Moreover, there is no evidence of them being fostered or even
supported by multicultural policies. Rather, such pathologies of mal-integration relatively rare in Australia, in spite of moral panics whipped up by the media can be
attributed to inadequacy of adaptive-integrative resources, unpreparedness of government agencies or policy implementation failures. Generally, such pathologies of malintegration occur in spite of multiculturalism, not because of it.
Immigrant maladaptation does happen, and it is often tolerated because of negligence
or opportunism. Directing scarce resources to migrant integration is politically difficult
and often unpopular among voters. Ethnic segmentation can be made politically profitable. Politicians or parties may court the ethnic vote, privilege organised ethno-regional
groups, or even encourage ethnic branch stacking in pursuit of electoral advantage.
Ethnic activists may embrace and support ethno-specific interests, even particularistic
ones, in pursuit of status, influence and money. Religious sects and churches may organise ethno-specific lobbies in pursuit of enlarged membership and favourite causes. But
all such developments are independent of if not contradictory to multicultural principles and policy strategies.

The non-negotiable elements

The closely related confusion concerns support for ethnic communities and organisations
implied by a multicultural strategy. The founding parents of multiculturalism have
accepted the formation of ethnic communities and ethnic organisations as aids in integration and not the agents of ethnic particularism. The Australian multicultural model
envisages the formation of open integrative and dispersed (rather than closed and

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

30

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

territorially concentrated) ethnic communities and the community-sustaining organisations as social adapters to broader community. Consequently, multicultural strategy discourages exclusiveness and particularism, and rejects all forms of ethno-religious
isolation and segmentation as dysfunctional. Migrants, in other words, are expected to
form ethno-specific communities and organisations, provided that these communities
and organisations aid social integration by becoming important intermediate structures
for social attachment and by nourishing a sense of belonging. A need for such intermediate structures is not only recognised by modern sociological theory, but also supported
by research on migrant deracination and alienation. Therefore, while supporting ethnic
communities and ethnic community organisations, the advocates of multiculturalism
explicitly discourage other forms of structural pluralism, such as ethno-specific parties
(even ethno-specific party branches), ethno-specific parishes and ethnically exclusive
organisations.12
Australian multiculturalism, in other words, is not and has never been a licence for
ethno-racial and ethno-religious particularism or closure. As the Brown paper (AEAC,
1977: 16) stresses, in a cohesive multicultural society, national loyalties are built on
ethnic loyalties. The White ACPEA paper (1982: 23) adds:
This [multicultural society] is different from a society based on separate development, in which
physical isolation or rigid inter-group barriers result in separate institutional arrangements
such as different legal, political or educational systems and there is very little common
purpose and shared identity.

These limits to multicultural tolerance of diversity are often ignored by critics. In

spite of the clear formulations of the non-negotiable institutions and practices including the Australian law and justice system, parliamentary democracy, and English as an
official language some of these critics still misrepresent multicultural policies as an
endorsement of all particularistic-traditional cultural practices, including those harmful
to, discriminatory and/or incompatible with Australian laws and core values.

Equity in multicultural policies

The second principle of Australian multiculturalism equity is often confused with
equality (by radical critics) or with privilege (by conservative critics). Both confusions
result in misinterpretation of policy goals and intentions.
Equity means fairness, that is, equal treatment, opportunity and access. Equal treatment has always meant regardless of any ascribed characteristics, including racial, ethnic or religious background. Equity does not guarantee equal outcomes, but a fair go, a
level playing field in competition. Obviously, the implementation of this principle in
the selection of immigrants has always been qualified. Australia has always selected
immigrants according to some specific criteria (skills, education, family status, etc.)
and some discriminations were legitimate (e.g. related to security, health, etc.). But all
naturalised new Australians could count on the same treatment as old Australians, keeping in mind that, as for any other general principle, equity/fairness is always an aspiration, rather than an accomplishment.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

31

Pakulski

This is important in clearing up confusions about ethno-racial prejudice and discrimination. Their persistence unfortunate as it may be cannot be seen as evidence of
failures or deficiencies of multiculturalism simply because the root causes of prejudice
and discrimination are largely beyond the social realms covered by multicultural policies. Similarly, a correlation between ethnicity and occupational status which is quite
complex and dynamic cannot be seen as a failure of multicultural strategy (the violation of equity) before the impact of other legitimately stratifying factors (such as skills,
experience, performance level, etc.) is taken into account.
In the eyes of some critics, multiculturalism gives a privileged position to non-British
communities and cultures by supporting their sustenance. Even if there is a proverbial
grain of truth in such criticism, the formulation is highly confusing. Culture-sustaining
support (like the grants for language teaching typically channelled through ethnic communities and their bodies) has always aimed at promoting integration. Therefore it has
been directed to weak communities, incapable of self-sustenance, and has been conditional on the overall integrative purpose of cultural initiatives and/or integrative functions of supported communities. In spite of occasional abuses of this principle, cultural/
community support remains a central element in current multicultural policies (APIC,
1977: 53; Bowen, 2011a, 2011b).13
This brings us to the issue of relations with Australias indigenous peoples.14 It should
be stressed that multiculturalism was designed principally for dealing with immigrant
integration, and not for repairing relations with indigenous Australians. Nevertheless,
multiculturalisms affirmation of cultural diversity and its insistence on equity did affect
relations between Anglo-Australians and Aboriginal peoples. However, the key elements
of government strategy towards Aboriginal Australians arguably the most disadvantaged peoples (or set of communities) in Australia are contained in the reconciliation
programmes. Reconciliation involves principles and policies that transcend multiculturalism. It recognises both the special position of the first Australians and the harm caused
by their disenfranchisement and expropriation and of the discrimination against them by
European settlers. The programmes also propose much wider recognition of Aboriginal
cultures and traditions, including some elements of indigenous lore and land rights. Such
practices, though, should be seen as special, extending legitimately beyond the realm
of multiculturalism and into the domain of reconciliation strategies.

Reciprocity and mutuality

There has also been a fair amount of confusion among both the critics and the advocates
of multiculturalism about the issue of reciprocity and mutuality. Australian multiculturalism has always been reciprocal in the sense of promoting both rights and duties/
obligations. It has also been mutual in the sense of specifying the rights and duties of
minorities, as well as the majority. These rights are spelt out in a more explicit manner,
including the freedom to choose and maintain ones own cultural identity understood
as the sense of belonging and attachment to a particular way of living. They involve
respect for cultural differences (including the right to a distinct cultural identity)
(AEAC, 1977: 3). The rights are backed, so to speak, by equity in pursuit of resources,
especially resources for social integration. These rights are frequently targeted by

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

32

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

critics, and often confused with privileges. They cannot be seen as privileges because
they are universalistic that is, they extend to all minorities and they are formulated
together with obligations, the latter forming the other side of the moral ledger. This
other side is often ignored. It includes not only the duty of inter-cultural understanding
and tolerance, as well as loyalty to the laws and political institutions of Australia, but
also a duty of participation cum engagement in community life (the social duty of
shared responsibility for, commitment to and participation in society, AEAC, 1977: 3).
The National Agenda for Multicultural Australia (Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1989:
8) articulates these reciprocal duties in a more specific way as premises and limits
to multiculturalism:
multicultural policies are based upon the premises that all Australians should have
an overriding and unifying commitment to Australia, to its interests and future
first and foremost;
multicultural policies require all Australians to accept the basic structures and
principles of Australian society the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance
and equality, Parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English
as the national language and equality of the sexes; and
multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to
express ones own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept
the right of others to express their views and values. (1989: 8)
Because the rights are formulated as a reverse of duties, and because of the strong
emphasis on reciprocity, Australian multiculturalism may be interpreted as a form of
social contract between the majority and the diverse minorities. The majority accepts
and protects minorities, affirms cultural differences and supports a degree of sustenance
of minority cultures that is necessary for integration, but in the expectation that minorities fulfil their part of the moral contract, that is, that they remain socially engaged
(participate in social life), loyal to Australia and respectful of the majority. This involves
respect for the majoritys core values, norms, traditions and meta-institutions (such as
law, justice system, parliamentary democracy and market economy). Such an interpretation implicit in the Brown, Blue and White papers reveals, again, close links between
multiculturalism and traditional liberalism.15 This also means that cultural assimilation
(adoption of the mainstream/majority identity and culture) is not discouraged by multicultural strategies. It remains an option, a matter of choice.

Respect for the majority

Some critics and commentators portray multiculturalism as a rebellion against the AngloAustralian majority and its culture and heritage, as an equivalent to a revolutionary challenge to the postcolonial dominant majority. While the advocates of such rebellious
multiculturalism people who see it as a heroic struggle against the dominant majority
can always be found, they constitute a small minority. This is because the rebellious
interpretation is clearly at odds with all original formulations of multiculturalism, its

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

33

Pakulski

theoretical foundations and its recent official versions (Bowen, 2011a, 2011b). The
original vision of multicultural Australia, and the current policy strategy embraced by the
government, remain respectful of the majority culture and its institutions. They are also
mindful of its anchoring in the British liberal tradition, a tradition that reflects, and originates from, a powerful stream of British liberal philosophy and French classical sociology. The British philosophical tradition has been supplemented by the Australian
egalitarian tradition of a fair go, both of which stress the value of individualism, respect
for diversity, tolerant accommodation of differences, and concern with individual and
group freedom. This is very much in line with the French sociological tradition that
stresses the importance of social integration and the value of social cohesion. In turn,
both make Australian multiculturalism compatible with Australian postcolonial traditions (e.g. Levey, 2010; Williams and Bond, 2013).
Australian multiculturalism has always stressed respect for the majority: its history,
traditions, core values and central institutions. Even the advocates of a more radical version of multiculturalism those who insist on the right to resist assimilation and oppose
cultural domination seldom see the status quo as imposed hegemony. There is widespread recognition of the democratic rights exercised by the majority, as well as its
duty of recognition and care towards the minorities and their cultural heritage. This
recognition seems to inoculate Australian multiculturalism against radicalisation but it
does not prevent confusions and misconceptions.

Conclusions
The confusions are likely to grow with multiculturalism torn by two trends. On the one
hand, its key principles have been accepted in planning for diversity (e.g. Inglis, 2008);
on the other hand, it has been drawn into culture wars triggered by anti-immigration
movements and social pathologies of mal-integration (e.g. Chapman, 2010). This turns
multiculturalism into a contested concept and multiplies confusions. Various caricatures
of multiculturalism (like Multikulti) are publicised by leaders of anti-immigration
movements, and they become favourite targets for criticism. But such caricaturing and
scapegoating occur at a heavy price in terms of confusion and distortion.
This does not mean that multiculturalism is faultless or blameless, or that it always
delivers on its promises of immigrant integration and social cohesion. Like all general
visions and policy strategies, multiculturalism has already revealed most of its virtues
as well as its shortcomings. But in order to assess the overall record of multiculturalism
in a fair and accurate way a task that is not undertaken here we must start by clearing
the confusions. When this is done, critics will realise that they have to do much more
than pin the well-known problems and pathologies that accompany mass migrations on
multiculturalism. Any fair assessment has to start by clearing the confusions, but then
continue with a wide comparative analysis: monitoring the levels of social integration/
cohesion, comparing the outcomes in societies embracing multiculturalism with outcomes in societies that embraced rival policies; and comparing the outcomes before and
after the introduction of multicultural strategies. Criticisms based on confused interpretations of multiculturalism are not able to do that.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

34

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. See Barry (2002), Putnam (2007), Sarrazin (2010), Roth (2010); for a summary of criticisms of
multiculturalism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_Australia<wikipedia.
org/wiki/Multiculturalism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism.
2. For an overview of multiculturalism in Australia, see Lopez (2000), Castles (2001), Jupp
(2002), Jupp et al. (2007), Marcus et al. (2009) and Tarvan (2012). Multikulti refers to a
superficial celebration of, and support for, ethnic diversity, with no consideration given to
social integration.
3. Liberal assimilationism is based on the expectation of immigrants gradual and spontaneous
(i.e. largely unassisted) acculturation/assimilation to their national legitimate cultures.
4. UN agencies have estimated the number of conflict refugees alone in mid-2013 at over 45
million.
5. For a history of its forging, see Williams and Bond (2013).
6. See, in particular, the early discussions of immigration and settlement strategies (e.g. Birrell
and Birrell, 1981; Jupp, 1966, 1984; Williams and Bond, 2013), as well as Zubrzycki (1964)
and Martin (1972, 1978).
7. See the AEAC (1977) (Brown) paper Australia as a Multicultural Society, the APIC (1977)
(Green) paper Immigration Policies and Australias Population, the APIC (1979) (Blue)
paper Multiculturalism and its Implications for Immigration Policy, and the ACPEA (1982)
(White) paper Multiculturalism for All Australians. For the recent statements see Bowen
(2011a, 2011b).
8. The 1977 AEAC paper is the first document that clearly spelt out the principles of Australian
multiculturalism. It was drafted under the chairmanship of the ANU sociologist, Jerzy
(George) Zubrzycki.
9. See, for example, the Federal Treasurer Peter Costellos declaration in 2006 that there
was no place for Sharia law [sic] in secular society like Australia and the 2010 statement by the then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon that there is no place for Sharia
law [sic] in the Australian society. Quoted in: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm
10. Groups should not separate themselves from the rest of the community in a way that denies
either the validity of Australian institutions or their own shared identity as Australians. The
pursuit of group interests should not be taken so far that they damage the nation as a whole or
unfairly infringe the rights of other groups (ACPEA, 1982: 26).
11. The Blue paper (APIC, 1979: 14) makes it abundantly clear: We should oppose any tendency
for ethnic groups to regard themselves as distinct from the wider Australian society, with an
ethnic identification that excludes the concept of membership of the Australian community
and nation (original emphasis).
12. Though the formation of ethno-religious communities that spontaneously form around
churches and priests is not opposed, and ethno-specific religious services (in ethnic languages), as well as ethno-specific aged-care services, are also supported.
13. There are, though, some exceptions, especially in the distribution of age-care grants for ethnically specific services. But the overall purpose of such assistance remains integrative in the
sense of preventing social isolation and exclusion of those immigrants who do not communicate in English.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

35

Pakulski

14. The plural should be used here to stress the cultural diversity of native Australians.
15. In line with the liberal tradition, multicultural strategy attempts to maximise the freedoms of all
citizens to choose an identity and a way of living that suits their plans. See also Levey (2010).

References
ACPEA (Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs) (1982) Multiculturalism for All
Australians (White paper). Canberra: AGPS.
AEAC (Australian Ethnic Affairs Council) (1977) Australia as a Multicultural Society (Brown
paper). Canberra: AGPS.
APIC (Australian Population and Immigration Council) (1977) Immigration Policies and
Australias Population (Green paper). Canberra: AGPS.
APIC (Australian Population and Immigration Council) (1979) Multiculturalism and its
Implications for Immigration Policy (Blue paper). Canberra: AGPS.
Barry, B.M. (2002) Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Birrell, R. and T. Birrell (eds) (1981) An Issue of People. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Bowen, C.E. (2011a) Why Sheridan and the Immigration Minister Parted Company on Road
to Multiculturalism, The Australian 16 April. URL (consulted 9 December 2012): www.
theaustralian.com.au/nationalaffairs/why-sheridan-and-the-immigration-minister-partedcompany-on-road-to-multiculturalism/story-fn59niix-12260396848124
Bowen, C.E. (2011b) The Genius of Australian Multiculturalism, speech at the Sydney Institute,
17 February. URL (consulted 12 September 2012): www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/
cb/2011/cb159251.htm4
Castles, S. (2001) Multiculturalism in Australia, in J. Jupp (ed.) The Australian People: An
Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapman, R. (2010) Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints and Voices. Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Durkheim, E. (1933 [1893]) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: Free Press.
Inglis, C. (2008) Planning for Cultural Diversity. Paris: UNESCO-IIEP.
Jupp, J. (1966) Arrivals and Departures. Melbourne: Cheshire-Lansdowne.
Jupp, J. (1984) Ethnic Politics in Australia. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jupp, J., J. Nieuwenhuysen and E. Dawson (eds) (2007) Social Cohesion in Australia. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Levey, G.B. (2010) Liberal Multiculturalism, in D. Ivison (ed.) The Ashgate Research Companion
to Multiculturalism. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Lopez, M. (2000) The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 19451975. Melbourne:
Melbourne University Press.
Marcus, A., J. Jupp and P. McDonald (2009) Australians Immigration Revolution. Sydney: Allen
and Unwin.
Martin, J. (1972) Community and Identity. Canberra: ANU Press.
Martin, J. (1978) The Migrant Presence. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin.
Office of Multicultural Affairs (1989) National Agenda for Multicultural Australia. Canberra:
AGPS. URL (consulted October 2011): www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/
agenda/agenda89/executiv.htm
Putnam, R. (2007) E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The
2006 Johan Skytte Prize, Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 12642.

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015

36

Journal of Sociology 50(1)

Roth, B.M. (2010) The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature. Washington, DC:
Summit Publishers.
Sarrazin, T. (2010) Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Is Doing Away With Itself or
Germany Is Abolishing Itself). Berlin: DVA.
Tarvan, G. (2012) No Going Back? Australian Multiculturalism as a Path-Dependent Process,
Australian Journal of Political Science 47(4): 547561.
Williams, J. and J. Bond (2013) The Promise of Diversity. Melbourne: Grosvenor Books.
Zubrzycki, J. (1964) Settlers of the Latrobe Valley. Canberra: ANU Press.

Author biography
Jan Pakulski is Professor of Sociology at the University of Tasmania and Fellow of the Academy of
the Social Sciences in Australia. His publications include Postmodernization (1992), The Death of
Class (1996), Postcommunist Elites and Democracy in Eastern Europe (co-edited 1998),
Globalizing Inequalities (2004) and Toward Leader Democracy (2012).

Downloaded from jos.sagepub.com by guest on March 17, 2015