In the world, multicultural policies have been subject to scrutiny as more and more societies are becoming multicultural. Ethnic diversity has increased over the past couple of decades like never before calling for major reforms in the accommodation and equality of people all over the world. The rapid urbanization and forced displacement of people, has led to the formation and evolvement of new societies. Migrants come into societies as short terms, long-term or permanent residents but are challenged by feeling and actually being included in the societies, in most cases they remain excluded and considered as outsiders (Sisk, 2017). This can be attributed to man factors, among which the failure of multiculturalism stands out. In times when conflict arises in urban areas with a diverse range of individuals with cultural and ethnic backgrounds, the blame goes to the migrants who are accused of failing to integrate into society (Fincher et al., 2014). It is the Age of migration and the peak of globalization, as Castles, de Haas and Miller (2013) put it, the world is collectively becoming one. However, notions of conflict, violence and at extreme cases terrorism has negatively affected the process of integration. In the wake of attacks that took place in major European and American cities has caused a backlash on multicultural policies. Some have claimed to move past multiculturalism while others are working toward reformative measures.
Multiculturalism has brought a lot of questions on nationalism, citizenship, and belonging. The collective habitation of people represented by their cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender or racial identities should be a form of celebration and recognized as a right for every individual as long as the common rule of law is respected. An important dimension of multiculturalism in the public space can be fulfilled when prior factors such as inclusivity into society is successful. The structures of urban spaces can then be constructed with multiculturalism as its core concept where different cultures, identities, and religions can be reflected in the provision of facilities (Fincher et al., 2014). Through time the movement of sustaining one’s own identity could be in fact a move from just differences to a collective identity based on the difference each member has (Watson, 2016).
This paper explores multiculturalism and planning. It delves into answering the extent in which planning enables or constrains diversity. In order to do so, it begins with an overview of multiculturalism, illustrating its definitions, dimensions and birthplace. It describes the benefits of multicultural policies as well as the criticism that has surfaced since its inception. Followed by connections with multicultural urban planning and the impacts it has brought to migrants and the nation. Lastly, it focuses the relationship between belonging and citizenship as an interrelated concept and where they fit in multiculturalism and multicultural urban planning.
Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism, globally, has gained increasing attention and is a highly debatable issue (Ambrosini & Boccagni, 2015; Fincher, Iveson, Leitner, & Preston, 2014). Defining the term multiculturalism can take two forms - either descriptive or normative or even both in some cases depending on the type of cultural difference in society, national groups, and immigrants (Colombo, 2015). According to Kymlicka (2010), multiculturalism is the process of creating new models of democratic citizenship that are in line with human rights by abolishing the hierarchical and exclusionary relations that exist. Bloemraad (2007), states that multiculturalism is a political philosophy that intends to recognize and accommodate demographic diversity, illustrate a country’s ethnocultural diversity and a policy instrument with the aim of achieving political objectives. Other authors define multiculturalism as a collection of legal and political ideologies that accommodate ethnic diversity that emerged in western societies replacing former ethnic and racial identities (Qadeer, 2008). Similarly, it is evident in British history that multiculturalism came about as a reform in policy for managing diversity (Amin, 2002; Vertovec, 2007). Depending on the context (time, space and situation) the different forms of defining multiculturalism take shape.
In western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands, multiculturalism is in fact a policy, demographic datum, political philosophy and ideology (Fincher et al., 2014; Leung, 2015). Multiculturalism in Canada has long been rooted in the nation by the provision of multiculturalism policies. Canada is the first country to implement a multiculturalism policy with the aim of immigrant integration and it is considered as the foundation of national identity and social reality (Winter, 2015). The success of the Canadian multiculturalism policy can be pinned to the ideological dimension of multiculturalism and its consideration as a national identity (Mookerjea, 2015; Winter, 2015; Wood & Gilbert, 2005). In Immigration is the main source of the increase in population in Canada contributing to the creation of a multicultural society (Qadeer, 2008). Historically, immigration in Canada is as old as the nation. However, the increase in migrants has led to the adoption of multicultural policies and a change in the status of the nation. Similarly Dutch and American multiculturalism was led by the belief of the accommodation of cultural, ethnic and religious groups promotes a successful inclusion into both societies, more or less. The reason emphasis was given to Canadian multiculturalism is because of it rooted history. All in all, these countries are set to be pioneers in naming and practicing multiculturalism.
As much popular attention multiculturalism has gained, it has been accepted in some countries and not so in others, it has faced criticism and backlash from all corners (Fincher et al., 2014; Kymlicka, 2010). Starting from the term multiculturalism, which lacks clarity has made it wide open to critics. Among the critiques of multiculturalism, Blormraad (2007) points out its failure to integrate immigrants into the political, economic, and social structures of the host society. Heath and Demireva (2013) state that the failure of multiculturalism has led to the segregation of communities resulting in negative results on trust and unity. Multicultural policies have been engineered to enhance the social and cultural differences of immigrants, middle classes and the political elites which in turn has led to social segmentation (Pakulski, 2014). Additionally, Kymlicka (2010), states the fear that multicultural policies have instilled on the majority where they see it as a threat to their way of life. Similar to Pakulski (2014), Kymlicka (2010) also argues that multiculturalism has failed to uphold the right of minorities in the different structures and in some cases has contributed to the social isolation they face. The intended and unintended consequences of multicultural policies have led to former pro-multiculturalism to shift their way to discourses of citizenship, integration, and social cohesion (Kymlicka, 2010). Despite the criticism multiculturalism faces, a number of inhabitants live side by side in a culturally diverse space (Kymlicka, 2010).
Planning in Multicultural Cities
Diversity has long been associated with the development of the city. The incorporation of the various ethnic groups in the city has been studied theoretically as well as practically (van der Horst & Ouwehand, 2012). Fincher et al. (2014) argue that the transformation of city life brings back the debate of multiculturalism; bringing failure as one standpoint in which the conflict between inhabitants and migrants from different cultural backgrounds in the everyday life of urban neighborhoods, condemning the lack of integration of the migrants with the locals. On the other hand, the notion of multiculturalism as a positive introduction of ethnic and cultural diversity has embraced a positive ambiance with the various customs, traditions, cuisines and music ethnicity has brought (Kymlicka, 2010). In spite of this, the clash between studies shows the increase in diversity poses as a challenge in most western societies due to the inability to address the needs and grant collective rights of the diverse population (Raco & Kesten, 2018).
Recently, countries have become multicultural due to the increase in the movement of people within and across national boundaries, bringing people with different ethnicities, identities and cultures together (Sisk, 2017). Even though migration has existed for centuries and is not a new phenomenon, it has only gained popular political salience until recently. The relatively newer form of migration has caused a large movement of member(s) of an ethnic group to reallocate in other societies. This led to the connotation of different meanings for ethnic diversity today as opposed to the meaning it did in times of the classical immigrant-receiving nations. The evolving distinctions of immigrants based on their race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality or the intersectionality of various categories to create the complex and fluid form of identity given to a person or group over time has created the hierarchical distinction of the ‘self’ and ‘other’ (Castles, de Haas & Miller, 2013; Valentine 2007).
On the other end of policies and the politics of migration, the reality of migrants on the national demographic context shows the increasingly multicultural nature of cities. It is usually in the form of neighborhoods that place making of migrants evolves into. This placemaking enables migrants to create their identity and home away from home in host societies (Pemberton & Phillimore, 2018). However, depending on the standpoint you are looking at place making, it has both pros and cons. The positive aspects, according to Pemberton and Phillimore (2018), its can be a way migrant withhold their identity, on the contrary, it can be a way to exclusion from host nation, conflict and also can reinforce hierarchical inequality leading to racism. So, how can effective multicultural planning bring change?
From the above definitions of multiculturalism, we can take concepts to define multiculturalism. The form of cultural perseverance and the institutionalization of religious gatherings, and cultural or ethnic group is at the core of multiculturalism (Qadeer, 2008). According to Qadeer (2008), multicultural planning is not a peculiar category of urban planning instead an approach backed by inclusive urban planning policies that are used to accommodate the needs of ethnic and racial minorities and build common ground. Creating a common ground by defining the core values within a society is important for the state to ensure that cultural and religious diversity exists (Vertovec, 2007). Therefore, a basic understanding of multicultural planning is the accommodation of various ethnic cultures with their shared values through participatory programs and effective information sharing (Qadeer, 2008). With the successful implementation of this, it is possible to decrease the negative aspects Pemberton and Phillimore (2018) state. Another point on how multicultural planning can be successful is, according to Sandercock, the abolishment of universal citizenship where societies are structured by vertical relationships among each other and needs to be recognized and facilitated moving towards an equal and diverse society (Watson, 2016).
According to Qadeer (2007), multiculturalism has two defining principles: one is the right to practice cultural heritage individually as well as collectively, and the other one is the right of equality and freedom for all protected under the rule of the law. The effectiveness of urban planning will be reached when the needs of immigrants and non-immigrants is considered it as well as required to be responsive. At this point, we need to note that the degree of needs is diverse in the sense that preferences vary in terms of gender, social class, race and cultural background (Valentine, 2007). Not all may agree with this standpoint, migrant communities still face challenges in socio-economic aspects of their lives, bring with them traditions and customs that are harmful into host societies, the promotion of individual cultures is open for discrimination, reinforces minorities and in the long run makes it difficult for integration policies to effectively achieve their aim (Kymlicka, 2010).
A collective force that compromises of different actors in society, such as the government, planners, and civil societies play an active role in establishing the various dimensions. However, these dimensions not exist dependent of each other, in a demographic reality policy can play an important role in determining the outcomes with the implementation framework in hand. Thus, for a smooth understanding of multiculturalism, the crucial aspect is to know that the dimensions are not only interconnected but affect and influence each other. To better understand the concept of multiculturalism, as mentioned, it is important to combine the above-mentioned approaches and most importantly within the context of the specific country, as the implementation of multicultural policies is space oriented.
Belonging and Citizenship
This section of the paper tries to create an understanding for belonging and citizenship, specifically with regard to migrants, multiculturalism and multicultural urban planning. The increase in the global flow of people has brought the concept of membership into the big picture. In many of the world’s largest urban centers, the fluidity of membership has changed the way identity, citizenship and space are traditionally defined (Wood & Black, 2018). The term inclusivity is widely defined with dimensions that span academic disciplines as well as axiomatic and public discourses. Although this adds value to its flexibility as a term, it does not lend itself to a specific type of research. As such, inclusivity will be conceptualized by using the dimension of spatial belonging.
In earlier times, the merits for inclusion as a citizen comes from the close proximity and space attachment an individual has towards a space in terms of attachment, and territorial place-making in association with the state (Wood & Black, 2018). That being the case, inclusivity in terms of social integration requires that the system to undergo modifications to suit the needs and demands of diverse individuals on the clear setting that no one should be discriminated against solely based on their differences (Fleras, 2015). This conceptualization shows the measurement of inclusivity by the degree of how well a person perceives that their needs and differences are being met by society. Inclusivity is thus a personal experience, where a person is entitled to feel more or less a sense of belonging in to a social and spatial domain. The domain - social and spatial are concepts that are interconnected where one cannot be understood without understanding the other, the spatial identity place cannot be understood without an understanding of the social identity of people and the reverse is applicable.
To find a concrete distinction between citizenship and belonging is challenging. Both have been used interchangeably and there is little that has been done to identify and clarify the similarity and differences of the two concepts. One aspect of belonging is the emotional attachment attained from being in one’s home or the association of feeling safe. The other form of belonging on the other hand takes into account specific political projects aimed at constructing belonging for specific collectivities in specific ways, which is synonymous with citizenship. Schinkel and Van Houdt (2010), refer to citizenship as a technique regulated by the state towards the population as an exclusion and inclusion instrument. The different aspects in which we view citizenship and belonging depend highly on the discourse we choose to engage in.
There exist dimensions of citizenship that are useful for understanding and analysis. Bosniak (2000) understands citizenship as a legal status, a system of rights, a form of political activity and/or identity or solidarity (Bosniak, 2000). Citizenship often provides some material or political significance in each category mentioned above. (Bhuyan & Smith-Carrier, 2012) However, citizenship is problematized for reasons aside of the formal juridical recognition within one or more of the categories, the boundaries of participant and inclusion in each situation have the potential to produce varying forms of citizenship. Citizenship hinders the totality of an individual's potential to be included in a system or society. Additionally, legal factors of citizenship or quasi-citizenship are important dimensions of belonging (both are central to forming the feeling of belonging) as they are often set as conditions for participating in engagement in an environment (Antonsich, 2010). It has been empirically proven that there is a strong correlation between an individual’s legal status and their sense of place-belongingness (Antonsich, 2010). But this does not mean that with the granting of citizenship there is an automatic generation of a sense of place-belongingness. Even on the other end of planning, universal citizenship can be a platform of powerful discourses where arguments and consensus take form, this is when conflicts are solved (Watson, 2016). This makes belonging is a more inclusive concept than citizenship. As such, discussions such as spatial belonging are critical for a comprehensive study of belonging in the planning of multicultural urban spaces.
Conclusion
The influx of migration flows in host countries has resulted in both positive and negative effects. It is undeniable that countries, globally, with relatively lesser advancement in multicultural urban planning are affected by the negative more than the positive. This imbalance is caused due to strains on the economic, political, security, and social dynamics of the host country face. In addition, it questions the national identities and homogeneity of the host nations. But in the midst of this upheaval, the benefits migrants bring with them their cultures, and market as they need to trade in order to maintain their livelihoods, some are also engaged in the labor market whether it is on legal grounds or illegally should not be forgotten.
To address the question, diversity still exists regardless to the policy changes. It can not be addressed in this simple manner as the intersectionality of various factors influences the outcome. Sisk (2017) argues that the lack of a unified agreement on the level and policy of migration has led to the vulnerability of migrants. The literature maybe limited to multiculturalism being Eurocentric, but diversity exists in all parts of the world. In countries where migrants face political, economic, and social exclusions, it is most likely for them to face security threats. Let’s take the example of South Africa, migrants and refugees face discriminatory attacks and constantly fear xenophobic violence that has time and time again cost the lives of many (Amnesty International, 2018). In addition, in transit countries, migrants face problems with migration policies that limit their protection leading them into poverty, social exclusion, and criminal activities. All sorts of problems are caused due to the poor planning culture of receiving nation. These problems can be sorted if more emphasis is given to putting work on the ground rather than completely focusing on the discourses.
Reference
Ambrosini, M., & Boccagni, P. (2015). Urban multiculturalism beyond the ‘backlash’: New discourses and different practices in immigrant policies across European cities. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(1), 35-53. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07256868.2014.990362
Amin, A. (2002), Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34: 959-980.
Amnesty International. (2018). Amnesty International: the magazine of Amnesty International USA. Retrieved from https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999975812402121
Antonsich, M. (2010), Searching for Belonging – An Analytical Framework. Geography Compass, 4: 644–659. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x/epdf
Bhuyan, R. & Smith-Carrier, T. (2012). Constructions of migrant rights in Canada: is subnational citizenship possible? Citizenship Studies, 16(2), pp 203-221. Retrieved from: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/pdf/10.1080/13621025.2012.667613?needAccess=true
Bloemraad, I. (2007). UNITY IN DIVERSITY?: Bridging Models of Multiculturalism and Immigrant Integration. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 4(2), 317-336. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X0707018X
Bosniak, L., 2000. Citizenship denationalized. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7: 447–510.
Castles, S., De Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2013). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference?. Progress in Planning, 92, 1-55. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900614000282
Fleras, A. (2015). Multicultural media in a post-multicultural Canada? Rethinking Integration. Global Media Journal: Canada Edition, 8(2), pp 25-47. Retrieved from: http://www.gmj.uottawa.ca/1502/v8i2_fleras.pdf
Heath, A., & Demireva, N. (2013). Has multiculturalism utterly failed? Not really. Ethnic and Racial Studies (Online) Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870.2013,808754
Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and accommodation in diverse societies. International social science journal, 61(199), 97-112. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x
Leung, H. H. (2015). Canadian Multiculturalism in the 21st Century: Emerging Challenges and Debates. In: Guo S., Wong L. (eds) Revisiting Multiculturalism in Canada. Transnational Migration and Education. SensePublishers: Rotterdam
Mookerjea, S. (2015) Multiculturalism and Egalitarianism. In: Guo S., Wong L. (eds) Revisiting Multiculturalism in Canada. Transnational Migration and Education. SensePublishers: Rotterdam
Pakulski, J. (2014). Confusions about multiculturalism. Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 23-36. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783314522190
Pemberton, S., & Phillimore, J. (2018). Migrant place-making in super-diverse neighborhoods: Moving beyond ethnonational approaches. Urban Studies, 55(4), 733-750. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098016656988
Qadeer, M. (2008). What is this thing called multicultural planning? PLAN Special Edition. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.5761&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Raco, M., & Kesten, J. (2018). The politicization of diversity planning in a global city: Lessons from London. Urban Studies, 55(4), 891-916. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098016674869
Schinkel, W. and Van Houdt, F. (2010), The double helix of cultural assimilationism and neo-liberalism: citizenship in contemporary governmentality. British Journal of Sociology, 61 (4): 696-715.
Sisk, T. D. (2017). Migration, Multiculturalism, and Democracy: A Resource Guide, 16.
Valentine, G. (2007). Theorizing and researching intersectionality: A challenge for feminist geography. The professional geographer, 59(1), 10-21. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00587.x
van der Horst, H. & Ouwehand, A. (2012). ‘Multicultural planning’ as a contested device in urban renewal and housing: reflections from the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 49(4), pp 861-875. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/0042098011407098
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(6), 1024-1054. Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01419870701599465
Watson, V. (2016). Shifting Approaches to Planning Theory: Global North and South. Urban Planning, 1(4), 32-41. DOI: 10.17645/up.v1i4.727
Winter, E. (2015). A Canadian Anomaly? The Social Construction of Multicultural National Identity. In: Guo S., Wong L. (eds) Revisiting Multiculturalism in Canada. Transnational Migration and Education. SensePublishers: Rotterdam
Wood, B. E., & Black, R. (2018). Spatial, relational and affective understandings of citizenship and belonging for young people today: Towards a new conceptual framework. In Interrogating Belonging for Young People in Schools (pp. 165-185). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-75217-4_8
Wood, P. & Gilbert, L. (2005). Multiculturalism in Canada: accidental discourse, alternative vision, urban practice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3). Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00612.x
Source: 1 https://www.voiceonline.com/multiculturalism-celebration-diversity/