Erik Bleich

.

3 Re-imagined communities? Education policies and national belonging in Britain and France

Almost all highly i n d d a k e d Western European countries began sffiking foreign Labour following the Second World War, i nming ly h m non- European countries.' Yet, in spite of the fact tbt ethic minorities now constitute a signifcant propdon of the population8 of several European states, relatively little is known about how these demo~raphic changes have affected the national identities of West European nations. This p v r focuses on the effects of etlmic pluralism on education policies in Britain and France, two wuntries with particularly elevated pemtages of ethnic minority &dents. E d d n is a domain for undembuding national identity, since schools are the key institutional location for the state to dimeminate ideas about legitimate membership in the nation.

Viewed through the prism of education policy, Britain has ' r e - i m a w its community while ~rance has not British education policy was r e - w e d ss schools began to support c ~ l m m ~ p l d i s m and articulate an un-

- - - - -- - - - -

. --- -

of Britain as a multicultural country? In so doing, British education policies have sought to widen the bouts of national membership to include minority cultures as acceptable elements of Britishness. France, on the other

hand, assimilation has consistently of minority purs~ed -&rants an educational into the already policy established which tends French toward ~ul-. the France has thus resffirrned its cultural boundaries through its schools, leaving little place for ethnic minority cultures in education institutim. While thne are exceptions to these trends, Britain and France have undeasken subMal ly different policies with respect to ethnic minority immigrants in the arena of education.

This chapter proceeds in three p d . Part one argues that national membership can be finitfully waceptuaked by employing a 'boundary' framework. It argues that belonging is contingent not only on formal legal boundaries which regulate immigation and citizenship, but also on lcss concrete sociological boundaries between ostensibly equal citizens. A re- imagined community is defined as one which has undergone a shift in a sociological boundary of membership. Part two examines Britain and Frsnee, demonstrating that the two wuntties have taken very different edwtion policy paths. It shows that, despite certain counterowrents and exceptions, Britain has undergone a re-imagination of wmmunity tbrough education policy whereas France has not. F i y , part three argues tlud c o n c e p ~ the nation invoIves not only examhing the fldbility of national bound& - and thus the willingness to re-imagine community - but also the nation's content - the level of equality of belonging between individuals within the boundaries. Insights from catcgorizstion theories in cognitive science can clarify issues of stratiacation within boundaries. This, in turn raises questions about the advantages and disadvar&ges of re-imagining community, and therefore of the different British and French education policies.

Nations, bowdmh and reimagined community

All nations draw boundaries to deline membership in the national community. E~amining and analyzing identities through their boundaries has proven a useful approach for anthropologists in addressing issues of belonging in social groups (Bd, 1968; Wallman, 1978; Wallman, 1986). With respect to the nation, there are both formal legal criteria of citizenship and symbolic and socioiogical dimensions of belonging such as class, religion, ethnicity and nace. The multiplicity and overlap of lines drawn between members and non- members within a national wmunity raise complex questions about the location, salience, permeability and flexibility of different bboundaries. The concept of re-imagined community focuses on the last of these issues, asking

whether nations actively seek to widen their boundaries to include new members.

In Anderson's now-classic terms, a nation can be conceived of as an imagined community. 'It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even bear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion' (Andemon, 1991, p.6, emphasis in original). If an imagined community encompasses all members within a given set of boundaries, then a re-imagined community is a shift in the sociological boundaries of belonging to include a new group of members.' In terms of boundary flexibility, re-imagined community is thus the inverse of assimilation. Assimilation enjoins perceived outsiders to alter theh. practices and identities to conform to the presumed fixed and immutable identity of the nation. Conversely, re-imagimd community takes place when the national identity changes to accommodate these 'outsiders.'

A full-fledged case of re-imagimed community entails a shift in a nation's boundaries that takes place in all spberes of public policy and in all individual members' minds. However, because national identity is rarely agreed upon and because the state is a fragmented structure, this is an unlikely event. It is nevertheless possible to investigate how some spheres (or segments of the population) ~ e - i r n a g h community and to understand when and how the boundaries of nation come to be negotiated and re-negotiated. Each public policy area and different segment of society can be examined for chaqge. When dominant boundaries within a policy area or segment of society shif€, we can say that the community is partially 're-imagined' to include different individuals.

Although it is possible to discuss re-imagined community as it applies to the nation as a whole, it is more prudent to break down the analysis by focusing on three factors: the boundaries that are called into question; the actors that are shifting the boundaries; and, if applicable, the policy spheres in which boundaries are changing. If full belonging hinges on socioIogical boundaries as

segments of society, there may be key groups or individuals - such as political or media elites - which, through their strategic positions, have a multiplie effect on general social attitudes. Examining the changes in bomdary perceptions of these groups is particularly central to udmtmding the imagined and re-imagined community.

The ultimate measure of a re-imagined community is the individual and social perceptions of the nation's members. Nevertheless, a state's policies and legislation also serve to encode and repmduce national boundaries and national identity, and can therefore be understood as an additional location of the imagined community. Citizenship, immigration and rights policies @om this hc t i on in obvious ways, dealing explicitly with national status and participation (see Brubaker, 1992; Brubaker, 1989; Fneman, 1979; Hollifield, 1992; Soysal, 1994). Yet, these policy domains focus principally on the formal boundaries of belonging; other policies - notably education policies - must also be investigated for their mle in reflecting and promoting the social boundaries of the imagined community.

Because different individuals or groups can hold different ideas about the boundaries of the imagined community, and beeawe there are many policy areas which relate to expressions of the nation, diEixent political or social spheres may send mixed messages about belonging. Thus, as is commonly argued in Britain, positive signals vis4-vis ethnic minorities sent by the Government's inclusive 'integration' efforts may be o&et by resirictive immigration policies which imply that immigrants (closely a&ociated in the public mind with minorities) are undesirable. It is therefore ctitical to define the sphere through which the community is re-imagined. Defining the boundaries, the actors and the spheres relative to reimagined community renders tractable and con* the task of undemding the way in which the nation conceives of membership and belonging.

Educafion policy in BriWn and France well as on legal ci&hip status, then to understand how a community is re- imagined it is nmssary to specie which of these types of boundaries are being I This chapter examines cultural boundaries as negotiated by policymakers in the challenged. Re-imsgined community, by definition, focuses on the change in

I sphere of education. Education policy is a key domain for understanding the

sociological rather than in legal boundaries. Yet it is necesmy to specify social boundaries of the nation. Unlike immigration or citizenship policies, which types of sociological boundaries - such as cultural, racial or class - are at education does not deiine national membership in a formal or legal sense. Yet stake in the process of reimagination? more than other policy areas, it promotes and arosfers undecstmdings of the

Furthermore, it is critical to specify the actors involved in the re-

I national community to future generations, As Rex (1987, p. 218) argues, the

imagination. Mass s w e y data, opinion polls, indepth anthropological or education system is concerned with three tasks: social selection (of leaders), historical studies of particular societal groups and biographical works of transmission of skills, and 'the civic morality.' Authors on nationalism also important opinion makers or average citizens are all tools which can clarify the assert that transmission of civic values and the knowledge of the nation are extent and the locus of the re-imagined community. Although the boundaries of central functions of the education system (see Gelher, 1983, pp.29-36; the imagined community are unlikely to shift simultaneously across d l Anderson, 1991, passim, Hobsbawm, 1992, p. 96; Smith, 1991, p. 16).

52 63 4 r

Although individuals learn about the boundaries of the nation in myriad ways (ranging from the informal realms of media images and family intluences through a hierarchy of formality to immigration and citizenship laws), schools are one of the most important kdtutional l d o w for transmitting information about the boundaries of national membership.

Although few educational documents explicitly state the government's vision of the social boundaries of the nation, this vision can be interpreted by examining written policies and curriculum materials and by understanding their application in the nation's schools. This study thus seeks to understand how educational policymakm and practitioners have viewed the cultural boundaries of the British and French nations, and how they have devised policies to pass this vision on to future generations. Since the end of the Second World War, British educational policymakers and practitioners have increasingly embraced multicul-, and have therefore helped to institute a re-imagined community by widening the boundaries of belonging to the British nation to include ethnic minority cultures. In contrast, French educational elites and teachers have been much less open to notions of multiculturalism and have for the most part maintained their emphasis on the lafque educational structures designed to prevent the concept of culture fiom infiltrating school^.^ The goal of French policy is individual-based equality; the result is a refusal to re- imagine the nation's cultur~I boundaries to include minority groups' cultures in the educational sphere.

Although the contrast between Britain and France is sharp, it is not total. There have been exceptions to the rule in both countries. At different time periods and in different societal segments, the dominant trend has been bucked in each nation. In order to avoid an overly simplistic and d e d account of each counky's policies, the counterc-ts and exceptions within each country will also be explored below. Nevertheless, it is clear on balance that Britain has re-imagined its cultural bowdaries through education policy to a substantial d e p , whereas France has not.

British re-imagi~tion through educational multiculturalism

In adopting various aspects of the internationally popular paradigm of multiculturalism, British educational policy has sought to widen the boundaries of the nation to include ethnic minority cubes. Although the process and the policies have had their l i t s , Britain has accepted a substantial amount of multiculturalism in its education policy since the 1960s, and has thus promoted a vision of Britain as a m u l t i c W nation among a large proportion of its school-aged youth (sa also Bleich, forthcoming).

1966 marked one of the eartiest announcements of a mimagination of community, when Home Secretary Roy Jenkins proclaimed that the integration of immigrnnts was defined 'not as a flattening process of assimilation but equal

opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance' (cited in Freeman, 1979, p. 57). This statement effectively announced a different view of society, a view of a multicultural British nation which rejects assimilation. Although J&B' statement reflected more openness to minority cultures than did concurrent policies, between the mid 1960s and the late 1980s, changes to education policies introduced increasing levels of multiculturalism inBritain.

The 1966 syllabus of the West Riding of Yorkshire, for example, was the first to include a reference to other religions (NieIsen, 1988, p.69). Beginning in the 19709, issues of Muslim dress and food were raised and overcome through compromises such as ensuring that religious clothing conformed to the colors of the school uniform and provision of vegetarian or halal lunches (see Joly, 1995, p.16; Nielsen, 1992, p.54). And in 1971 the Schools Council published its Working Paper 36, 'Religious Education in Secondary Schools,' which announced a shift to an 'undogmatic' approach which 'does not seek to promote any one religious viewpoint' (Cole, 1988, p.126). Policies designed to favour linguistic pluralism were also developed in this period. The Bullock Committee stated in I975 that schools 'should help maintain and deepen knowledge of [the] mother-tongue,' two years before the EEC mandated mother-tongue instruction in 1977 (Bullivant, 1981; on the EEC directive see Churchill, 1986; Verma, 1984, p.66).

Beginning in the mid-1970s, research organizations (both government aililiated and not) increasingly described Britain as a multicultural or multiracial society (see Bullivant, 1981; Troyna and Wfiams, 1986, p.25). The multiculturalism of this stage was meant to bring about changes in the education of the 'native' British children as well as in that of the 'immigrants.' In 1977, the Department of Education and Science published a Green Paper entitled Education in Schools. Although the recommendations were aimed primarily at solving problems faced by ethnic minority pupils, this document also supported the establishment of a large-scale inquiry into ethnic minority issues, and suggested that it 'might embrace the wider concept of the education of all children for life in a multiracial society' (01eat Britaim Department of Education and Science, 1977, p.22).

The years 1975 to 1988 saw increasing numbers of local and national level multi- policy initiatives. Anti-racism also gathered momentum during this period as a fiank and open challenge to 'native' or 'white' Britons and their views on race (see h o t , L985; Troyna and Williams, 1986). And by 1981, approximately twenty-five Local Education Authorities (LEAS) in Britain had appointed an advisor for multicultural education, and several had produced policy documents on multiculturalism; by 1989, at least fitly-four of the 108 LEAS had multicultural, anti-racist or equal opportunities policies, and a M e r twenty had policies under review or in preparation (Taylor, 1992).

The major announcement of multiculturalism in this era was the 1985 publication of the Swann Report, Education for All. The government committee used this platform to state that 'it is essential to change fundamentally the terms of the debate about the educational response to today's multi-racial society and to look ahead to educating all children, from whatever ethnic group, to an understanding of the shared values of our society a s a whole as well as to an appreciation of the diversity of lifestyles and cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds which make up this society and the wider world' (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons, 1985, p.316, emphasii in original). In the conclusions and recommendations @.769), the report talks about combating racism and inherited stereotypes and ensuring that multiculturalism permeates all aspects of a school's work.

Furthermore, the government released monetary support for the findings of the Swann Report. Approximately £3 million were funneled through the 'Educational Needs in a Multi-Ethnic Society' program between I985 and 1989 to support 1 19 projects. They covered a wide variety of regions, including many 'all-white' districts, and from 1988 on, 'projects were to he more firmly and openly directed towards changing the attitudes and behavior of white pupils' (Tomlinson, 1990, p.106). Though the funding was not enormous and the dwation of the programme was limited, the Department of Education and Science took a concrete step towards re-imagining British society as multicultural.

In spite of periodic setbacks and inherent limitations, multiculturalism has left an imprint in Britain, especially in areas with diverse ethnic and racial populations. The majority of education policymakers and practitioners are convinced that assimilation is not an appropriate method for dealing with cultural diversity. Rather, they accept the principle of developing a culturally encompassing definition of Britishness which moves the boundaries of nation outwards to include cultural minorities. And therefore British students - at least a significant portion of them - continue to learn about Britain as a multi-ethnic and multicultural society.

Ehcation policy in France: a preference for mimilation

In contrast to developments in Britain, France has - within the educational sphere - spurned the push toward notions of cultural inclusiveness withiin the nation. From 1945 until the early 1970s French schools did not differentiate immigrants or ethnic minorities from other pupils. As Noiriel (in CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation), 1987, p.25) notes, 'the school was a powerful factor in the abandonment by the children of immigrants of their culture of origin; for their generation this stigmatisation was a fundamental psychological incentive which filled them with a fierce determination to integrate within the French society by ridding themselves of the slightest trace

of any difference.' Educational institutions have had pride of place in turning immigrants into ~renchrnen.'

Between the early 1970s and the mid 1980s there were brief and tentative moves away from the dominant assimilationist paradigm. Yet even during this era there was no true parallel to the education policy movement towards a re- imagined community that was taking place in Britain. And since 1985 there has been a marked trend in rhetoric and policy towards a renewed asshdationist model of d d i with ethnic pluralism in educational institutions (see Lorcerie, 1995, esp. pp.46-7). French public disoourse, government documents and state policies have tnunpeted the value of the French system of integrating foreigners into the established fabric of society (see, e.g., Haut Conseil d I'lntPgration, 1991). Although the French concept of integration appears to permit cultural maintenance as long as cultural differen- remain in the private sphere, within the public sphere, assimilation is often a more fitting policy description. And of all of the policy domains, education policy has taken the most assimilationist line. Schnapper (1991, p.351) notes that the Commission on Nationality stresses the role of education and socialization in determining Frenchness, a position much more in line with traditional notions of 'le creuset fianqais' (the French melting pot) than with a reconcepMzed pluricultural community. Also, though the Haul Conseil d 17ntPgation accepts that cultural diversity can enrich the nation, it does not appear to advocate any major changes to French institutions - particularly educational institutions - as a result of it. Rather, it states that 'integration policy increases (valorise) solidarity, stresses similarities and convergences' (Haul Conseil d 1 'Intigation, 1995, p. 13).

In France, concepts of multiculturalism cut sttongly against the grain of the nation's republican and lafque values, inherited from the Revolution and from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century struggles over religion in school (Baub&oC 1994; Berstein and RudeUe, 1992). Culture is 'out of play' in French educational policy; and though many foreign critics claim that France's assimilationist model ip monocultural (Rex 1987), the French see it as acultwal. There is indeed a sense in which the culture is very French (since the school imparts a knowledge of the French language and French history), but French education policy is also latque - not favouring any one religion over another - and therefore argued to be neutral and universal. In the 'foulard affair' of 1989, to take the most prominent example, three girls were sent home fiom school for wearing Muslim headscarves, widely interpreted by the public as contrary to the principle of lafque education (Beriss, 1990). The notion of impartiality extends to racial or ethnic differences, making French actors resist the multiculturalism which has made inroads in British education policy.

The rejection of multiculturalism reflects a mafErmation of the cultural boundaries of the nation - whether interpreted as monocultural or antltural - within which immigrants and minorities must operate on the same terms as the

rest of the nation's children Education policy in France is thus an unabashed state tool for encouraging common French cultural boundaries in the public sphere.

Policy counterments in Brifain and France

The principal policy direction has been towards a re-imagiied community in Britain and towards assimilation in France; yet it is important to attend to the contradictions and the countercurrents present in each nation in order to nuance the stereotrpes about each country. For example, school policies towards ethnic and racial minorities in Britain have not always been multicultural. In the early post-war period, schools dealt with immigrants and their children much as they did with the native British. Government documents from the early 1960s, such as the Second Report of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Committee, were concerned with 'the role of the education system in bringing about the cultural assimilation of immigrant children into "British life'" (Todinson, 1983, p.16). This initial period of assimilationism only began to give way to multiculturalism beginning in the mid 1960s.

Additionally, in the 1990% the forward pmgtess of multiculturalism in British education policy has waned. Even as multiculturalism was on the rise in the 1970s and 19809, there were countercwrents of mowcuthualism which eventually halted the momentum of the movement. In the early 1980s, Prime Mister Thatcher and Education Secretary Joseph made statements to the effect that Britain's schools were meant to express a certain culture, d that there were elements of sense in mono-culturalism (on Thatcher, see Tomlinson, 1985, p.74; on Joseph, sea Troyna, 1990, p.403). There were vocal and vehement attacks on multiculturalism from right wing groups such as the Monday Club and academic think tanks like the Salisbury group which played up several prominent cases of parent or teacher discontent with multiculturalism (Bat@, 1995, pp.171-8; Halstead, 1988; Tomh~%n, 1990, pp.35-41). The infiuential Education Reform Act of 1988 contained virtually no reference to ethnicity or race, and there have been few references to multiculturalism in other government documents since then. In addition, the late 1980s moves to centralize the education system by instituting a National Curriculum may give & to further restrictions on multiculturalism, as some individuals with power over these policy levers believe that 'cbildmn should be taught to be Britidt (Richardson, 1995).

If there were pressures toward assimilation in Britain, there were also moves toward accepting cultural diversity in schools in France. Beginning in the early and mid-197Qs, politicians and educational policymakers began to institute new initiatives focusing specifically on the needs of immigrants. Special classes to ease foreign students' transition to French schools were introduced first at the primary and then at the secondary level. These were

followed by bilateral mother tongue teaching agreements negotiated with eight foreign states between 1975 and 1987. There were also a number of concessions announced in the mid-1970% which aimed to support Muslim culture in France, though perhaps intentionally. none in the field of education policy (see Kepel, 1991, p.142).

From the beginning of the 1980s to approximately 1985, there were l i t e d but noticeable moves away from pure assimilation and integration in education policy towards a more pluralistic view of French society (see Safran, 1989). Writing in 1983, Henry-Lorcerie bp.267-73) noted the strong increase in the use of the tenn 'intercultural' (similar to Britain's multiculturali3rn) in varied contexts in French society. Paralleling developments in Britain, France produced a document in 1985 on education and the demographic faet of cdhlral pluralism. The Rapport Berque can be seen as advocating a halfway house between a France with an 'historic French cultnral identity,' and one where there is a 'new concept of unity, respecting and taking into account heterogeneity, which the problem of immigrants' children raises' (Berque, ' 1985, p.57). Although by this time it was clear that the extent of the re- imagination of France as a multicultural nntion would be limited, there continued to be marginal aspects of French education policy which emphasize cultural pluralism, such as a 1989 Ministry of Education project to encourage schools to stress the 'foreign contributions to French heritage' (Boyzon-Frader, 1992, p.159).

Moreover, although the French education policy sphere is particularly immune to processes of expanding cultural boundaries of national belonging, other aspects of French society and policies are more open to this type of re- imagination of community. For example, France does not deny the right of individuals to maintain their culture outside of educational institutions. The quasi-governmental organization responsible for integrating immigrants into French society (the For& dlAction Sociale) even provides h d s to immigrant organizations to sponsor cultural events.

Yet noting these exceptions does not detract from the rule. Although in the first few years of the 1980s. there was a brief and weak push in education policy to re-imagine France as a culturally pluralist country, this quickly gave way to the more assimilationist rhetoric and policies of e d i eras. On balance, the French elite - and especially the education policy elite - is very reluctant to embrace educational mutticulturalism. Few education policies or public statements have aimed to re-imagine France as a multicultmd society, and this is even more true today than it was ten to fifteen years ago. Similarly, although the momentum of British multidtnralism was largely lost in the late 1980s and 1990% no attempt has been made to roll back the tanBible changes of the earlier decades. Thek have been no major policy ~hmge~affecting the presence of ethnic minority clothing and food in local schools. Moreover, in 1991 ninety-five per cent of surveyed LEAS had multicultudanti-mist or

69

equal opportunities policies in existence, under review or in preparation, up 8 Second, even if internal boundaries are eroded or moved to include new from eighty per cent in 1989 (Taylor, 1992, p.11). Finally, there is evidence . . . .... .. .. . " . . . . . groups (as in the case of a re-imagined community) 'prototype effects' may mat locaunes WIW nlgn percentages ox e m c mmonaes wnunue to support multiculturalism within their districts?

Nations, entegork and belonging

How does the re-imagination of community through British education policy - and the corresponding xaffimation of assimilation in France - affect belonging in the nation? Although Britain has shifted its boundaries of membership through its education policies, this may not be sufficient to guarantee equal belonging to ethnic minorities. The boundary approach implicitly assumes that once an individual is inside the boundaries erected to determine membership, he or she is on an equal footing with all other members since boundaries perpetuate a 'continuing d i c h o t o ~ o n between members and outsiders' (Barth 1969, p.14). Categorization theories in cognitive science demonstrate - and we know from common experience - that this is not necessarily the case. After briefly outlining two types of categories, this section explores their implications for the different politics of belonging as developed through British and French education policies.

Thinking about membership in the nation ultimately entails defining a category of individuals. Generally speaking, categ-Am- -- '---.--A *- '- abstmct c ntainers, with things either inside or outs 1987, p . 4 Within these 'classical' categories, 'no examples of the category than any other menibers 1987, p.7). And some theorists seem to conceive o this type of category. Andemn, for example, argues as limited, because it has 'finite, if elastic, boundarit, wJVw ..,..- .,-, nations,' and it is imagined as a community, because 'regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in erL --"-- :- -'--- conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship' (An& words, although there m y be inequalities along c class or status), once within the category of citize ":&.-.."

A =r uuu w y-~nuy uut lur -. niuuu lur. ~ v ~ u

there are two types of internal differentiation rerele nation. F i as argued above, altho@ the formal defined by legal rules, the less formal concepts of n

continue to separate core from peripheral national members. In cognitive psychology research, Rosch has observed that 'categories, in general, have best examples (called "prototypes")' 'off, 1987, p.7). In Rosch's study of birds, for example, 'subjects view robins and sparrows as the best examples of birds, with owls and eagles lower down in the rankings and ostriches, emus, and penguins among the worst examples' (Lakoff, 1987. p.44). Thus in the prototype model of categorization, some members are indeed 'better examples' of the category than others (Lakoff, 1987.9.56). While this type of hierarchical cognitive structure may not negatively affect ostriches or emus, it is easy to imagine how being a 'worst example' of the category 'British' or 'French' might have more significant implications.

In the cases discussed above, British and French policymakers and political leaders have been attempting to deal with internal stratification between the majority and the minorities. The British strategy of re-imagining the community has aimed to redefine minority cultures as equal to the pre- established British culture. But how successful can this project be? Although many British pupils learn that their nation is multicultural, there are undoubtedly British citizens who will never feel that a Pakistani Muslim wearing head grvb and a beard can be 'truly British.' Redefining cultural boundaries is a long and difficult process. Furthermore, by accepting cultural

this judged unjust by many steeped in the liberal tradition. The goal of this orocess, bowever, is to bring all members of the community within the

,Y.+ LUC -"a, 12 Olw~yLJIJ ,

3m9 1991, p.7). In other established cultural boundariesand thus to reduce or e l i i the inegalitarian

,ther dimensions as effects of difference. In theory, once inside the national cultural boundaries,

n, all members are equal L there is no longer a core-periphery divide and there is no room for pmYotype

CIUUIW. difFerentiation, at least along a cultural dimension. lmmigr~~nts and minorities

v... at.:- :- ....&..-.t..--..,.- =,:at.:- SL- =A 4 category of cihnship 1, are thus piaced on an equal footing with the 'natives,' and suffer less firom the

:v& to belonging in the I discrimination or aversion that m y arise firom cultural difference.

category of citizenship is 1 Because there are cultural boundaries to belonging, and because extending

iembership and belonging these boundaries to include minority cultures may not overcome the problem of ...L :-= -._,__ _-- . differentiation between 'orototvuical' national members and others, the value I are subject to a variety of informal boundaries W U G ~ ntuy renuer some

individuals questionable members. Wahin the legal boundaries, there may ' of re-imagining comm*ity re& open to debate. The strengths of the re-

therefore be identifiable Moiological boundaries which act = exclusion imagined community process lie in its tolerance of diversity, in its insistence

mechanisms. a on majority (and not just minority) attitude changes, and in its direct approach to dealing with the potential codicts arising from cultural difference. Yet, as

the French would emphasize, a more assimilationist model also has its advantages. A narrowing of the cultural gap between minorities and the 'natives' reduces the ability of the majority to use cultural boundaries as a means of distancing the minorities; in France, this tends to bring 'Frenchness' more in line with the classical categories of cognitive science theory, where no members are 'better examples' of the category than others. That each nation is attempting to foster equality and belonging is beyond dispute. Which method is ultimately better suited to the task remains to be seen.

Notes

I I am grateful to Amy Gwowitz, Patchen Markell and Elaine Thomas for helpfol commenb on earlier versions of this paper. For fmancial support I would like to thank to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Can& the Knrpp Foundation and the Center for en rope^ Sbldies at Harvard Unwersity.

2 Since British edwatiw policy io highly decentralized, the data me~entcd below refer principally to education-policy devel&ents in ~ n d a n d and wales. for which the shonhand 'Britih education poli i ' is wad.

3 Thcorrtically, a boundary dft wuld also exclude ~nembas. T%is restrictive form minbt - be labeled a 'de-imagined' wmmunity.

4 It m y also be necessary to aoeount not only for the broad domain of the boundary (culNral, neial, socio-economic), but slso for specific sub-dlvisiom w a i n these domains. such as boundaries between subculhms. For example, although Britain and France are primarily Christian countries. Jews are commonly held to be ' l a problematic' members of the nation than Mustims.

5 Larque can be translated as 'lay,' although in France it is a tan loaded by the history of turn of the century political battles over religion in schools. Unlike in the United Stares. when separation of church and state is &ble with multicuiturnb, in ran& Iaicifd and the Revohtiwary fradition have combined to render m u i t i o u ~ l i s m politically d a t a b l e .

6 To pan~~paraphras;? the title of fiugffl WeWs 1976 classic Pmsam Info F r e ~ h m n . 7 This judgment is based on interview with senior educational policy officas in innw

London boroughs.

References

Anderson, B. (1991), Imagined Communities, Verso: London Amot, M. (ed.), (1985), Equal Opporhcnities Policies in Education, Pergamon

Press: Oxford. Banks, M. (1995), Ethnicify: Anthropological Commt iom, Routledge:

London. Barth, F. (ed.), (1%9), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social

Organitorion of Culture Difference, Little, Brown and Company: Boston. Baub&ol, J. fed.), (1994), Religions er laYcit6 dam I%wope des Douze, Syros:

Paris. Beriss, D. (1990), 'S~~nres , Schools, and Sebmgation: The Foulard Affair',

French Politics and Society, Vo1.8, No.1, Winter. Berque, J. (1985), L'hmigration b l%cole de la Rdpblique, La

Documentation Franphe (Centre National de Documentation P4dagogique): Paris.

Berstein, S., and RudeUe, 0. (eds.), (1992), Le Modkle RPpublicain, Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.

Bleich, E. (forthcoming), 'From International Ideas to Domestic Polies: Educational Multiculturalism in England and France', Comparative Politics.

Boyzon-Frader, D. (1992), 'The French Education System: Springboard or Obstacle to Integration?', in D. L. Horowitz and 0. Noiricl (eds.), Immigrants in Two Democracies: French und American Erperience, New York University Press: New York.

Brubaker, R. (1992), CitiZe~hip and Nationhood in France and Germany, Haward University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Bmbaker, W. R. (ed.), (1989), Immigration and the Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, University Press of America: L a n k MD.

BuUivant, B. M. (1981), The PIwalist Dilemma in Ecfucalion: Six Case Studies, George Allen and Unwin: Sydney.

CERl (Centre for Fducational Research and Innovation) (ed.), (1987), Multicultural Education, OECD: Paris.

Churchill, S. (1986), % Education of Linguistic and Cultural Minorities in the OECD Countries, Multilingual Matters: Clevedon, Avon, England

Cole, 0. (1988). 'Religious Education After Swann', in B. O'Keeffe (ed.), Schools for Tomowow: Building Walls or Building Bridges, The Falmer Press: London.

Freeman, 0. P. (1979). Immigrant Labor and Racial Conjlct in I&hl'd Societies: The French and British Experience 1945-1975, Princeton University Press: Pdnceton

Gellner, E. (1983), Nations and Nationalism, Cornell University Press: 1- New York.

Great Britah Department of Education and Science (1973, Education in Schools: A Consulatatiw Document, HMSO: London.

Great Britak Parliament: House of Commons (1985), Education For AII' The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minoriry G r o w (The Swam Report), HMSO: London.

Halstead, M. (1988), Eabcation, Justice and Cultural Diversity: An Emminatibn of the HoneyfordAffair, 1984-85, The Falmer Press: London.

Haut Conseil B I'Int&ration (1991), Pour un Mod& Frongzis d'lntdgration, La Documentation Franqaise: Paris.

Haut Conseil 4 l'lntegration (1995), Liens Cdturels et Intdgwtion, La Documentation Frangaise: Paris.

Henry-Lorcerie, F. (1983), 'Enfants d'Immigr.9 et &ole Franpiw: B Props du Mot d'Ordre de Pagogie Interculturelle', in L. T a h (ed.), Maghribins en Ftrmce: imigrb ou immigrds?, Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientiiique: Paris.

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1 992), Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.

Hollifield, J. F. (1992), Immigrants, Mmker.~, and States: The Political Economy of Postwar Europe, Haward University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Joly, D. (19951, Britannia's Crescent: Making a Placefor Muslim in &jti& Society, Avebury: Aldershot.

Kepel, G. (1991), Les Banlieues de I'lslam, Seuil: Paris. Lakoff, G. (1983, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categaries

Reveal about the Mind, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Lorcerie, F. (1999, 'Scolarisation des Enfants d'lmmim: Etat dm Lieu et

Etat des Questions en France', Confluences M.diterrande, Vo1.14, Printemps.

Nielsen, J. S. (1988), 'Muslims in Britain and Local Authority Responses', in T. Gerholm and Y. G. Lithman (eds.), The New Islamic Presence in Western Europe, Mansell Publishing Ltd.: London.

Nielsen, J.S. (1992), Murlims in Western Europe, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

Rex, J. (1983, 'The Concept of a Multi-Cultural Society', New Communiry, Vo1.14, No.l/Z.

Richardson, R. (1995), 'National Identity: Summer 1995', The Rmymede Bulletin, September.

Safran, W. (1989). 'The French State and Ethnic Miority Cultures: Policy Dimensions and Problems', in J. R. Rudolph and R. J. Thompson (eds.), Ethnoterritorial Politics. Policy and the Western World, Lynne Rienner: Boulder.

Scbnapper, D. (1991), Lo France & I'IntPgratit~n, Gallimard: Paris. Smith, A. D. (1 %I), Nationalldentity, Penguin Books: London

Soy&, Y. N. (1994). Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Taylor, M. J. (1992), MulticuItural Antiracist Education &r ERA: Concerm, Comaints and Challenges, National Foundation for Educational Research: Slough, Berks.

Tomlinson, S. (1983), Ethnic Minorities in British Schools: A Review of the Literature. 1960-82, Policy Studies InstiWeinemann Educational Books: London.

Tomlinson, S. (1985), 'The 'Black Education' Movement', in M. Arnot (ed.), Race and Gender: Equal Opportunities Policies in Education, Pergamon Press: Oxford.

Tomlinson, S. (1990), Multicultural Education in White Schools, Batsford: London.

Troyna, B. (1990), 'Reform or Defonn? The 1988 Education Reform Act and Racial E?quality in Britain', New Communily, Vo1.16, April.

Troyna, B., and W i l l i i , J. (1986), Racism, Education and the Sfate, Croom Helm: London.

Verma, G. K. (1984), 'MulticulWsm and Education: Prelude to Practice', in G. K. Verma and C. Bagley (eds.), Race Relatibns and Cultural Dz'erences: Educational and Interpersonal Perspectives, m o m Helm: London.

Wallman, S. (1978), 'The Boundaries of 'Race': Processes of Ethnicity in England', Man, Vo1.13,No.2.

Wallman, S. (1986), 'Ethnicity and the Boundary Process in Context', in J. Rex and D. Mason (eds.), Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Weber, E. (1976), Peasants into Frenchmen, Stanford University Press: Stanford.