The Intercultural Alternative to Multiculturalism and Its Limits

7/27/2019 The Intercultural Alternative to Multiculturalism and Its Limits

1/16

University of Massachuses - Amherst

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

EASA Workshop 2012: Working Papers Cultural Heritage in European Societies and Spaces

2012

Te Intercultural Alternative to Multiculturalismand its Limits

Katharina BodirskyMiddle East Technical University

Follow this and additional works at: hp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa

Part of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Cultural Heritage in European Societies and Spaces at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It

has been accepted for inclusion in EASA Workshop 2012: Working Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For

more information, please contact [email protected].

Bodirsky, Katharina, " Te Intercultural Alternative to Multiculturalism and its Limits" (2012).EASA Workshop 2012: Working Papers.Paper 8.hp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa/8
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/323?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa/8?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa/8?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/323?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/chess_easa?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://scholarworks.umass.edu/?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fchess_easa%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/16

PaperpresentedattheWorkshopUncertaintiesintheCrisisofMulticulturalism,EASAconference2012,Paris

1

TheInterculturalAlternativetoMulticulturalismanditsLimits

KatharinaBodirsky

(MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,Ankara)

PaperpresentedattheWorkshopUncertaintiesintheCrisisofMulticulturalismattheEASA2012

conference,Paris.

Scholarlyattention in thepost-multiculturalmoment inEuropehastendedto focus on

renewedassimilationist/exclusionarynationalpolicyandonthesuccessofpopulist/right-

wingpoliticalparties.Theimplicitorexplicitframeofreferencehereisgenerallythenation-

state.LessdiscussedhasbeenaturntointerculturalisminparticularinEUandcitylevel

policy in Europe, which is the subject of this paper. In the following, I argue that such

interculturalpolicyisbestunderstoodnotasanalternativetoliberalmulticulturalism,but

as an alternative neoliberal multiculturalism which is embedded in contemporary

processesofstatetransformation.WiththisImeantheinterrelateddevelopmentofmulti-

levelgovernmentalarrangementsinEuropeandtheneoliberalizationofstategovernance.

MyargumentisbasedonresearchinBerlinonEU-Berlinrelationsinregionaldevelopment

and immigrant integration policies from summer 2008 to summer 2009,which included

amongothersinterviewswithkeypolicy-makers,attendanceatrelevantpolicyevents,and

analysis ofpolicy documents and verbatim transcriptsof parliamentarymeetings. At the

timeofresearch,theBerlincitygovernmentwasconstitutedbyasocialdemocratsocialist

coalition.Afterthemostrecentelectionsinlate2011,thishaschangedtoasocialdemocrat


3/16


2

Christiandemocratcoalition,whichislikelytohaveanimpactonpartsofthepolicyframe

Iamdiscussinghere(i.e.immigrantintegrationpolicies).

InterculturalisminEU-cityrelations

InterculturalpolicyhasbeenpromotedinEuropeanpolicynetworksinvolvingEU/European

institutions and multicultural European cities since the mid-2000s. Who are the key

playershere?Apart fromthe internationalUNESCO, this istheCouncilofEurope (witha

focus on intercultural dialogue), various EU institutions, in particular the European

Commission(whichlinkedthethemeofinterculturaldialogueto immigrantintegrationon

theonehandandinnovationandcompetitivenessontheotherhand),andcitynetworks(in

particular EUROCITIES) and city administrations where intercultural policy has been

promotedasameanstoenhancebotheconomiccompetitivenessandsocialcohesion.(This

isbecauseinterculturalismintheEU-citypolicylinkdrawsheavilyonthethesesofRichard

FloridaandCharlesLandry,aboutwhichmorelateron.)

TheBerlincitygovernmenthastakenanactiveroleintheEUROCITIESnetworkwithitsgoal

ofdeveloping a (EU-wide) shared language and de factocooperationon immigrant

integration and regional development issues. Berlin also took part in the Intercultural

CitiesprogramwhichisajointprojectoftheCouncilofEurope,theEuropeanCommission,

and EUROCITIES, and the goal of which is cooperation in city-level policy formation on

immigrant integration. The city government at the time moreover developed a new

integrationconcept,finalizedin2007,whichreflectstheinterculturalparadigmwell.


4/16


3

This city-level promotion of intercultural policy should thus not be seen as a passive

implementationofaEuropeanpolicyframework;rather,thecityadministrationwasactively

involved in policy development through the EUROCITIES network and much might have

beeninfactcarriedupwardsfromthecityleveltoEU-levelpolicy-making.Itisimportantto

keep in mind though that, despite such policy networks and a shared (intercultural)

language developing, the approaches of the key institutions mentioned above are not

identical;nevertheless,wecanidentifycertainkeyfeaturesofinterculturalpolicythatare

articulatedanddifferentlyemphasizedinthesedifferentpolicycontexts.ItistothesethatI

nowwanttoturn.

WhatareKeyFeaturesofInterculturalism?

Interculturalistpolicyasarticulatedinthesepolicyandpoliticalcirclesisexplicitlypresented

asanalternativetomulticulturalism.Forexample,theconceptoftheInterculturalCities

program distinguishes intercultural policy from non-policy, guestworker policy,

assimilationist policy, and multicultural policy. The distinction to multiculturalism is

drawnasfollows:

MULTICULTURALPOLICYmigrantsand/orminorities canbeaccepted aspermanent

and their differences from the cultural norms of the host community are to be

encouraged and protected in law and institutions backed by anti-racism activity,

accepting of the risk that thismay in some circumstances lead to separate or even

segregateddevelopment;

INTERCULTURAL POLICYmigrants and/or minorities can be accepted as permanent

and whilst their rights to have their differences from the cultural norm of the host

community are recognised in law and institutions, there is a valorization of policies,

institutions and activities which create common ground, mutual understanding and

empathyandsharedaspirations;(CouncilofEurope,EuropeanCommission2008:5)

Interculturalism,accordingtothestatementabove,isaboutthepreservationofdiversity,

i.e.itisassertivelynotaboutexclusionorassimilation.Inthissenseitmightbeconstruedas


5/16


4

in line with multiculturalism. However, the above distinction the keyword here is

segregated development also echoes the conservative and liberal critique of

multiculturalismasleadingtoso-calledparallelsocieties.InthecaseofGermany,thishas

generally beenequatedwithbothcultural(self-)segregationand(self-)exclusion fromthe

labor market by immigrants and their descendants. Policy-makers promoting

interculturalismthuswanttopreservethekeythrustofliberalmulticulturalism,namely,the

affirmation of a culturally diverse polity in opposition to exclusionary or assimilationist

approaches,while also reacting to and in fact affirming the claim that multiculturalism

failed. Interculturalism thus promises to correct the supposed deficiencies of

multiculturalismby

1)recognizingtherighttoindividualculturalidentityandpractice(ratherthanacollective

right toculturalcommunity) limitedby the (human) rights ofothers. Broadly compatible

withliberalformulationsoftolerance,thisisareactioninparticulartoliberalcritiquesof

multiculturalism as oppressive of subordinated members of cultural communities and

especiallyhighlighted in the Council ofEurope and EUpolicy (lessso in the Berlin case).

(Here, itbecomesapparentthat interculturalismshares liberalandconservativeanxieties

abouttoomuchdifference,whichisusuallyassociatedwithaparticularconstructofthe

Muslim).

2) promoting intercultural dialogue, mixing, and hybridity (as opposed to a mosaic of

separate cultures) as a means to overcoming segregation. This becomes in particular

relevantthroughthepromotionofneighborhoodsocialcohesionprojectsincities,among

themBerlin,andinformspolicyprogramssuchasInterculturalCities.


6/16


5

and3)ensuringequalityofopportunity(ratherthanguaranteeingsocialwelfare)through

measuresthatarediversity-sensitive,i.e.treatculturalpropertiesaspotentialresourcesfor

success in the market. That is, the goal is overcoming exclusion in the socioeconomic

sensethroughintegrationintothelabormarketorentrepreneurialism.ItfeaturesinEU-city

networks and is foregrounded in the Berlin case, where it finds expression in policy

promoting access to employment, diversity-sensitive education, intercultural opening of

stateinstitutions,andtosomeextent,politicalparticipationofnon-citizens.

Theinterculturalargumentis thatpoliciesthatensurethatdiverseindividualsparticipate,

(harmoniously)interact,andmixinurbanandworkspacecanturnculturaldiversityfroma

threat into a benefit. Again, in thewordsof the InterculturalCities concept that are

quiteparadigmaticforthepoliticalsupportforinterculturalpolicies,alsoinBerlin:

FormostcitiesinEurope,culturaldiversitywillbeanissuetheywillhavetofaceup

to.Indeed,oneofthedefiningfactorswhichwilldetermine,overcomingyears,

whichcitiesflourishandwhichdeclinewillbetheextenttowhichtheyallowtheir

diversity to be their asset, or their handicap. (Council of Europe and European

Commission2008:4)

Or,asoneofmyintervieweesfromtheGreenpartyinBerlinputit:

Internationality[whichsheseesasprerequisiteforacompetitivecityandagoalfor

citypolicy]doesnotdevelopby,letssay,determiningonthebasisofacensusthat

thisorthatmanynationalitieslivehere.Thequestionishowtheyareinterrelated,how they live together, and whether they are in fact in their daily practice

international or rather again only national, each one in his small. This is not

internationality, this is only statistical internationality; you can indeed decorate

yourselfwiththat,butitisnotatrueassetforthiscity.

Here, again, it is interculturalism (people interacting what she calls internationality)

ratherthanmulticulturalism(herimplicitadversary,statisticalinternationalityofseparate

culturalornationalcommunities)thatisconsideredatrueasset.


7/16


6

ANeoliberalizedMulticulturalism?

Despiteoccasionalclaimsto thecontraryonthepartofinterculturalists,Iwanttosuggest

thatinterculturalismisnotaradicaldeparturefrommulticulturalism.Forexample,liberal

multiculturalistshavegenerallyadvocatedcertainlimitstotherighttoculture(usuallyinthe

form of human rights) or debated exit rights for subordinated members in cultural

communities.Interculturalismis,however,alsonotthesameoldwineinnewbottles(cf.

Meer andModood 2012,andresponses). Interculturalism, I argue,neoliberalizes (liberal)

multiculturalism.Onaconceptuallevel,thisisshowninitsparticularconceptualizationof

therelationofthesubjecttohercultureinaworldoffree-market-capitalism,Onapractical

level, it is manifested in policy propositions that fit well with a shift from welfare to

workfarewithinapoliticalcontextthatprioritizescompetitivenessin thefreemarketover

othergoals.

Ininterculturalism,cultureisanindividualpropertyandresourceratherthanacollective

good.Forexample,therighttoindividualculturalidentityandpracticethatfiguresstrongly

in relevant EU documents is not to protect the freedom of cultural communities from

majorityimposition,astrongmotivationofliberalmulticulturalism,butthefreedomofthe

individualtochooseculture.Thisspeaksofthedeepsuspicioninparticularbyliberalcritics

ofmulticulturalismofthickculturalcollectivitiesthatwouldlimitanindividualsrightto

optoutparticularpracticesandbelongingsorwouldfailtobetolerantofotherwaysof

doing things. What interculturalists value instead is hybridity, mixing, creative choice,

whichpresumesthatanindividualtakesanentrepreneurialstancetowardsherownculture

(orculturalproperty/ies),whichisthen,aswewillsee,toconstitutearesourceforherin

economic terms. Culture, it isargued, isat the heartof creativity,which is the fountof


8/16


7

innovation, which constitutes competitiveness in the knowledge-economy (see Bodirsky

2012). The individualization of culture as property thus links upwith the dominance of

economisticformsofvaluationinlinewiththefreemarketlogiccharacteristicofneoliberal

governance.

In fact, interculturalismmakes its case for diversity on the basis of intercultural policys

supposed economic benefits in a context of free-market-competition (rather than, for

example,throughadiscourseofsocialjustice(seee.g.Wood/Landry2008)).Interculturalists

here frequently make three claims about how interculturalism can turn culture from a

threat into an asset (which, in turn, function as justification for the adoption of

interculturalpolicies):

First,interculturalismisseentomobilizeunusedresourcesfortheeconomyandrelieve

the financesof anoverburdenedwelfare state by ensuring (culture-sensitive)equalityof

opportunity,thusnotonlyincludingunemployedimmigrantsintothelabormarketbutalso

usingtheirculture-specificcapacitiesandnetworks.

Second, it is claimed via Richard Florida (2003) that the diverse and tolerant city

environment that intercultural policy promotes constitutes a competitive advantage in

inter-localcompetitionamongcitiesoverhigh-skilledlaborandcapitalinvestmentdriving

thecontemporaryknowledge-economy,astheseprefertolerantplaces.

Third,itisarguedviadiversitymanagementapproachesandCharlesLandry(Landry/Wood

2008) that the intercultural interaction and mixing of diverse individuals leads to the


9/16


8

generation of new creative ideas and that resulting innovation results in increased

competitivenessofthelocaleconomy.

Such economistic arguments for diversity are usually in the foreground when

interculturalism is promoted over assimilationist or exclusionary alternatives to

multiculturalism.Theimplicationofcourseisthatwhendiversityisvaluedforitssupposed

contribution to value-creation, then those who seemingly do not use their culture

entrepreneuriallyasaresource,thosethatapparentlydonotseizetheopportunitiesnow

supposedly created for them, are devalued. The recent Sarrazin debate in Germany

showedthisveryclearly.

The concept of diversity foregrounded in interculturalism in fact has an implicit class

dimension it refers to the high-skilled immigrant for the much-hyped knowledge-

economy,nottolong-standingoftenlow-skilledimmigrantpopulations.Thisisreflectedina

bifurcation in policies for the creative diversity that is considered a resource and an

assetontheonehandandforthelow-skilledorunemployedthatfigureinpolicyspeech

stillpredominantlyasaproblemorthreatontheotherhand.

Inthe caseofBerlins new integrationconcept, for example, the firstgoalspecified isto

render the diversity of the citymore visible and thus toenhance its attractiveness for

high-skilledmigrantsandcapital(buildingonRichardFlorida).A staffmemberofBerlins

commissioner for integrationandmigration explained the reasons for this goal tomeas

follows:


10/16


9

Integrationpolicysotosayisnotonlytheattempttominimizelackbutalsothe

attempttodiscoverresources,andthoseareinpartintheinnovativecapacityor

attractivenessthatoriginate frombigcompanies likeMTVor Universal fora very

differentstrataofmigrants,whoareneverthelessimmigrants,whoarenotourfirst

concern, because they can look after themselves, theyhave enough money, but

neverthelessarepartofthemigrantpopulationwhichonecannotneglectentirelyorshouldnot,becauseBerlinofcourselivesfromthat.

This bifurcation in policy links up with an implicit hierarchy, which also shows in the

commentofamemberoftheGreenpartyinBerlinthatIinterviewedwhotookabroadly

intercultural stance and who contrasted the classic Turkish migrant making negative

headlineswiththepotentialofwell-educatedrecentimmigrants:

Berlinhasquite interestingpotential intermsof awell-educatedworkforcewith

multicultural background and all that. We have relatively big communities both

fromeasternEuropeanstatesand forexamplefromtheMiddleEast,notonlythe

classic Turkish migrants who are always written about in the newspapers, a

relativelywell-educatedEnglish-speakingcommunityandallthat.Thiscouldactually

bealocationadvantageformanythings.

Thistranslatesintoanactualcontradictioninpolicy-makingforthesedifferentcategories

ofimmigrantswhichisgenerallynotacknowledgedbyinterculturalpolicy-makersnamely,

that creating an urban living space attractive for creative diversity can mean the

displacement of low-income residents, many of them immigrants, by supporting local

gentrificationprocesses.InthecaseofBerlin,currentgentrification,propellednotleastby

housing speculation in the contemporary context of crisis, affects in particular the

multicultural neighborhoods of Kreuzberg and Neukoelln. Intercultural city policy

welcomes this under the heading of creating the right mix in currently problematic

neighborhoods.Thus,thereportonNeukoellnfortheInterculturalCitiesprogramnotes:

Asghettosusuallydontre-convergeon theirownwithsociety,it isimportantto

recruitnew inhabitants. According to local actors, the transformationshave

already begun. More and more artists are looking for apartments, galleries and

studiosinthedistrict.Thisisagoodsign,because,accordingtoamodelthatrepeats

itselfinmanyEuropeancities,thisisthefirststeptowardsgentrification.(CouncilofEurope,EuropeanCommission2008b)


11/16


10

Suchactivesupportforgentrificationisafeatureofneoliberalgovernance.InBerlin,ithas

beenpromotednotonlybytargetinginvestmentforthecreativeandculturalindustriesat

such multicultural neighborhoods, but also by foregoing measures that could prevent

displacementofcurrentlow-incomeresidents(seeBodirsky2012).

Theequalityofopportunitymeasuresthatinterculturalismalsoentailsdonotaddresssuch

problems. Infact, they fit ratherwellwithaneoliberal shiftfromwelfaretoworkfareby

focusingonintegrationintothelabormarketratherthanamorecomprehensivevisionof

socialjustice.Thismoreoverglossesovertheproblematicconditionsofthelabormarketin

which immigrants are to be integrated, low-income, low social security work being the

norm.Equalityofopportunity,howeverculturally-sensitive,failstoaddressthewaysin

whichneoliberal policies, includingthedeclineofsocialprotection,support for increased

temporaryandflexibleemployment,thelackofaminimumwage,andpushforworkfarein

Germanyhaveincreasedclassinequalities.Allowing immigrantsthesameopportunitiesin

suchasystementailsonlyalimitedvisionofequalityandcohesion.Theinterculturalsocial

cohesion focus in neighborhoods cannot remedy resulting precariousness, but has been

criticizedfortakingpartintheneoliberaloutsourcingofstatefunctionstocivilsocietyand

insomecasesforpromotinggentrification(seee.g.Lanz2007).

In short, interculturalism is not somuch an alternative to liberalmulticulturalism as an

alternativemulticulturalismaneoliberalmulticulturalism.Itsneoliberaltenorconsistsin

the individualization of culture as a personal resource to be mobilized via channels of

equalityofopportunity,fittingwellwiththeneoliberaldismantlingofthewelfarestate,the


12/16


11

individualizationofrisk,andthepoliticalprioritizationofcompetitivenessintheknowledge-

economy.Valuingdiversitybecauseofitssupposedcontributiontovalue-creationimplies

the devaluation of thosewho seemingly refuse to do so,who seemingly fail to use the

opportunities given to them. Thus, the culturalist distinction between diversity and

difference(seeEriksen2006,Grillo2010)findsitsdoubleinclass,implicitlyopposingthe

newlysought-aftercreativemigrantwithlong-standinglow-skilledimmigrantpopulations

inGermany.The implications become clear in the dovetailing of interculturalpolicy with

processes of gentrification to the detriment of those populations, many of them the

denigrated Turkishguestworkers, that donot seem to fit the intercultural idealof the

diversesubject.

OriginsinStateTransformation

Whydowehavetheconcertedpromotionofinterculturalismonthecityscale,incontrast

tothetrendonnationallevels?WhileinthecaseofGermany,differentpoliticalorientations

oftherespectivegovernmentsofcoursematter,Isuggestthatwecanfindfurtherenabling

conditionsincontemporaryprocessesofstatetransformation.

In recent decades in Europe, supranational integration in particular through the

developmentofacommonmarketandthestrengtheningofEuropeanpoliticalinstitutions

has not only had implications for the nation-states but also changed the parameters of

regionalpoliticalpractice.ThefreerflowofcapitalinEuropecombinedwiththedrainingof

subnationalgovernmentalscalesfromstateresourcesandprocessesofdeindustrialization

have prompted city governments to compete with each other for investment and

consumptionmoneys.AsDavidHarvey(2001[1989])hasshown,suchentrepreneurialcity


13/16


12

governanceoftenturnedtocultureintheformofspectacleorculturalheritagetopromote

the city in such inter-local competition. With the popularity of Richard Floridas theses,

culture in the way of life sense has now become a further means for competition.

Deindustrialized, multicultural cities such as Berlin cling to their promises in a context

where, as one of my interviewees from the socialist (then) governing party put it, the

attractiveness of the city is its only trump in inter-local competition in the absence of

financialmeanstolurecapitaltotown.Moreover,ashasbecomeparticularlypronouncedin

thecurrentcrisis,Berlinhasprovenanattractiveplacefordevelopersandspeculationin

housing,withmulticulturalor,rather,potentiallyinterculturalneighborhoodsbeing

particularlysoughtafterandconsequentlygentrified.

Thepoliticalprioritizationofeconomiccompetitivenessoverothergoalsthatspringsfrom

this context of increased inter-local competition also helped rationalize the turn from

welfare towards workfare and the political support for low-income, low-security jobs in

Germany.Theresulthasbeen increased social inequalities. Consequently,cities have to

make do with a reality of increasingly class divided populations produced by

neoliberalizationwhereclaimsonthestateareoftenmadeinaculturalistframe(i.e.whois

entitledtothescarceresourcesexisting?).Theyhavetonegotiatethesocialconsequences

ofneoliberalstate-making,butwithoutmuchresourcestodoso. Interculturalism,withits

emphasis on dialogue, mixing, and equality of opportunity leading to economic benefit,

promises to solve all the problems of the city without much investment (that more

comprehensivesocialmeasureswouldrequire).Thatis,interculturalismbecomesattractive

inthisparticularcontextbecauseitpromisestoreconcilewhatisinfactacontradiction:to

resolveproblemsofeconomiccompetitivenessandofsocialcohesion,inawaymoreover


14/16


13

thatispossibleforfiscallystrainedcities.Thisconvenientlyglossesoverthewayinwhichso-

called social cohesion problems are a result of the neoliberal political prioritization of

competitivenessovergoalsofsocialjustice.

Thereisafurtherpoliticalrationaleforthecity-leveladoptionofinterculturalism.Citiesare

differentlypositionedinthemulti-levelgovernmentalarrangementsinEuropefromnation-

states.Muchofthediversityofnation-statesisconcentratedinlargecities,all thewhile

cities, unlike nation-states, have no gate-keeper function, they cannot regulate

immigrationandhavenoinfluenceoncitizenshiplaws.ThepreviousBerlingovernments

campaigntoallowlong-termresidents(non-citizens)tovoteinmunicipalelections,which

failedbecauseofresistanceonthenationallevel,speakstothat.Thisparticularpositionality

of cities lends itself to political approaches that seek to manage diversity rather than

overcome it, and to attempts to create political legitimacy not by homogenizing the

population,aswasfrequentlythecasewithnation-states,butbyheterogenizingthestate.

Thus,a staffmember ofBerlinsCommissioner for IntegrationandMigration atthe time

explainedthecitygovernmentsattemptataninterculturalopeningofstateinstitutions

asfollows:

thepublicserviceastranslator[Umsetzer]ofastateidea[staatlicheIdee]hasto

reflectinitscompositionthecompositionofthepopulation.Thereforetheinterestinrecruitingmoremigrantsforpublicservice,fordemocraticorlegitimacyreasons,

becauseonehastoaskatsomepoint,forwhomdoyouworkafterall,ifoneselfcan

nolongerreallyreflectthepopulation.

Theseekingoflegitimacythroughsuchmeansisthemoreimportantinacontextwherethe

statehasretreatedtosomeextentfromdeliveringwelfaretoitspopulationandwhere

high-skilledimmigrantsaresought-afterforeconomicreasons.Asmulticulturalismhasbeen

thoroughlydiscreditedpoliticallyandlackstheeconomicpromisesofinterculturalism,the


15/16


14

latter seems to emerge here as the policy paradigm of choice for multicultural,

deindustrializedcities.

Conclusion

Interculturalism promises to update multiculturalism by recognizing diversity but

discouragingtheformationofseparateculturalcommunitiesreliantonthewelfarestate.

Whileinterculturalpolicydoeshaspositivedimensionsinparticularsomeofthediversity-

sensitive equality of opportunitymeasures it is clearly limited by the way such policy

workswithratherthanagainstneoliberalgovernance.Here,itsimplicitconceptualizationof

culture as individual property and resource chimes well with practices of neoliberal

governance that entail de-facto hierarchies of belonging drawn on the basis of

presumptions about class and culture and resulting from the prioritization of

competitiveness in the free-market over goals of social justice. Interculturalism thus

emergesasatoolofgoverningincreasinglydividedpopulationsinacontextofneoliberal

state transformation, a tool however that seemsmore geared towards the needsof the

latterthanimprovingthelotoftheformer.

ReferencesCited:

BodirskyKatharina.2012.CultureforCompetitiveness:ValuingDiversityinEU-Europeandthe"CreativeCity"ofBerlin.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy18:455-73CouncilofEurope,EuropeanCommission.2008a.TheInterculturalCity:Whatitisandhowtomakeitwork.IntroductoryDocumentsforCitiesParticipatinginthePilotPhaseofthe

Intercultural Cities Programme, Joint Action of the Council of Europe and the EuropeanCommission.DGIV/Cult/IC(2008)01.


16/16


15

CouncilofEurope,EuropeanCommission.2008b.InterculturalCities.bersetzungdesBerichtesdesEuroparatesnachdemBesucham18.und19.Februar2009inBerlinNeuklln,Deutschland.Eriksen,ThomasHylland.2006b.DiversityversusDifference:Neo-LiberalismintheMinority

Debate. In The Making and Unmaking of Difference, ed. Rottenburg, Richard, BurkhardSchnepel,ShingoShimada,pp.13-36.Bielefeld:Transaction.Florida,Richard.2003.CitiesandtheCreativeClass.City&Community2:3-19.Grillo,Ralph.2010.AnExcessofAlterity?DebatingDifferenceinaMulticulturalSociety.InAnthropologyofMigrationandMulticulturalism:NewDirections,ed.Vertovec,Steven,pp.19-38.London:Routledge.Harvey,David.2001[1989].FromManagerialismtoEntrepreneurialism:TheTransformation

inUrbanGovernanceinLateCapitalism.InSpacesofCapital:TowardsaCriticalGeography,pp.345-68.NewYork:Routledge.Lanz,Stephan.2007.Berlinaufgemischt:abendlndisch,multikulturell,kosmopolitisch?DiepolitischeKonstruktioneinerEinwanderungsstadt.Transcript,BielefeldMeer Nasar, Modood Tariq. 2012. How Does Interculturalism Contrast withMulticulturalism?JournalofInterculturalStudies33:175-96.Wood,Phil,CharlesLandry.2008.TheInterculturalCity:PlanningforDiversityAdvantage.

London:Eearthscan.