Accommodating Cultural Diversity and Achieving Equity

In all culturally diverse societies, there has been a shift in public policy and public attitudes in recent decades, away from assuming that there is an inevitable process of cultural and psychological homogenization underway and the image of modern society as a “Melting Pot.” The shift has been toward a view that accepts that diversity is a fact of contemporary life and likely to continue for generations, with the concept of “Multiculturalism” providing a contrast to the “melting pot.” Even more recently, this shift in policy and attitudes has swung back away from multiculturalism in many countries, and returned toward the image of a homogeneous society with “one people, one language, and one identity.” The debate between these two images has been highly political, but it has also been the object of some psychological and social science research. In Europe, this debate has been more front-and-center than anywhere else.

This special issue of European Psychologist, coordinated by us on behalf of the journal’s editor-in-chief Alexander Grob, is devoted to the portrayal of some psychological aspects of these issues. In the call for papers, we requested scholars to submit papers of two kinds:

1. 1.
   Integrative papers that focus on key conceptual issues from a European or a comparative perspective. These might include: the very conception of multiculturalism; its relationship to immigration; public and private attitudes; discrimination; and the role of security and threat.
2. 2.
   Empirical review papers that focus on research findings on these issues in different regions of Europe. These might include: Western Europe; Northern Europe; Southern Europe; Eastern Europe.

We received many proposals, and after a selection and review process, this special issue now contains five papers that address various psychological aspects of living in a number of multicultural societies in Europe. Two of the articles focus on general features of the acculturation process and the psychological and sociocultural adaptations that result. One examines these processes and outcomes among immigrant youth in Germany (Frankenberg, Kupper, Wagner, & Bongard, 2013) while the other reports on research with internal adult migrants in Russia (Lebedeva & Tatarko, 2013). The other three papers each have a more specific focus on social institutions – education, sport, and religion. The role of multicultural education in promoting positive interethnic attitudes is discussed by Verkuyten and Thijs (2013). The role of sport in fostering intergroup harmony is examined by Hatzigeorgiadis, Morela, Elbe, Kouli, and Sanchez (2013). Finally, the core issue of religion in multicultural Europe is considered by Güngör, Fleischmann, Phalet, and Maliepaard (2013).

A parallel special issue examining multiculturalism outside Europe is being published in the International Journal of Intercultural Relations (IJIR), edited by Chan Hoong Leong (Singapore National University) and James Liu (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand). This contains eight papers including an introduction by the editors (Leong & Liu, in press), and articles that examine the state of multiculturalism among selected countries in North America (Berry, in press; Doucerain, Dere, & Ryder, in press), Southeast Asia (Noor & Leong, in press), Africa (Ng & Verkuyten, in press), Latin America (Sirlopu & van Oudenhoven, in press), and Oceania (Sibley & Ward, in press). Many of the key theoretical frameworks and assumptions on intercultural transition, acculturation, and multicultural relations are revisited and some of them are examined through a refreshing lens in light of new empirical data. The IJIR special issue also offers a critical thematic analysis on all multiculturalism-related publications that appeared in the journal’s 35 years of history (Arasaratnam, in press), with the aim of consolidating, synthesizing, and illuminating the prospective strategic directions for future multicultural research. Readers will no doubt find the IJIR special issue a valuable complement to the papers in this special issue of European Psychologist.

Equally of interest will be the upcoming topical issue „Migration and Integration“ of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie, due to be published as issue 4 (2013). This will cover multiculturalism-related issues in both minority-majority and minority-minority contexts in countries ranging from Australia to Finland (Sam, Jasinskaja-Lahti, Horenczyk, & Vedder, 2013).

Of related interest, the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) maintains a task force on cultural and ethnic diversity, whose first report for 2009–2011 can be retrieved from www.psychologie.de/downloads/EFPA_TaskForce_CulturalEthnicDiversity.pdf

Below, we outline the psychological discussion of multiculturalism in Europe, and introduce and provide a synopsis of the papers contained in this special issue.

The Meaning of Multiculturalism

The concept of multiculturalism has acquired many meanings in the past 40 years. In the 1970s, Berry, Kalin, and Taylor (1977) made the distinction among three different meanings with reference to Canada: multiculturalism as demographic fact (the presence of cultural diversity in the Canadian population), multiculturalism as an ideology (the general desirability among Canadians for maintaining this fact), and multiculturalism as a public policy (governmental orientation and action toward this fact). These three different meanings are still applicable in Canada and are evident in many other contemporary societies. They are closely related: Without the demographic fact, there is no need to be concerned with what the public might think about it and no need for governmental action, and public opinion and public policy are also likely to be closely related.

Although this special issue is mainly concerned with multiculturalism in Europe, we take our point of departure from Canada, where the world’s first multiculturalism policy was introduced by the Canadian government in 1971. This policy advocated support for: (i) the maintenance and development of heritage cultures (i.e., the cultural diversity component), (ii) the reduction of barriers to full and equitable participation of all Canadians in the life of the larger society (i.e., the intercultural aspect), and (iii) the learning of official languages as a basis for such participation (i.e., the participation aspect). This was followed by the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988), which declared that the policy of the Canadian government was to “recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage” (Section 3(1)(a)). It also recognized that “multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future” (Section 3(1)(b)). At the same time, the Act sought “to promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation” (Section 3(1)(c)). Because the Canadian 1971 policy and the 1988 Act were the first to lay out the basic policy elements and goals of multiculturalism, our discussion begins with them.

The diversity and equity aspects of multiculturalism have remained central to the Canadian policy since its inception, although, as noted by many observers (e.g., Fleras, 2009), there have been shifts in emphases over the past 40 years. The focus on support for the maintenance of cultural diversity was initially the major concern; this appears to have been an effort to halt (or reduce) the assimilationist features of earlier policies. Later, the second core concern in the policy (for equity and social inclusion) came to be emphasized more. And most recently, the incorporation of everyone into a Canadian civic society has come to the fore with an emphasis on a common citizenship for all.

To help clarify this use of the concept, other terms (such as assimilation, integration, melting pot, segregation, etc.) can be visualized clearly within a framework developed by Berry (1974, 1980). These issues are based on the distinction between orientations toward one’s own group and those toward other groups (Berry, 1980; Berry, Kalin, & Taylor, 1977). This framework considers the relative preferences for (i) maintaining heritage culture and identity and (ii) having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other cultural groups.

These two issues can be responded to as attitudinal or value dimensions, ranging from generally positive or negative orientations to these issues; their intersection defines four strategies portrayed in Figure 1. On the left are the orientations from the point of view of nondominant ethnocultural individuals and groups; on the right are the orientations maintained by the dominant larger society.

When nondominant ethnocultural groups do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, assimilation is the emphasized strategy. In contrast, when nondominant ethnocultural individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, separation is the chosen alternative. When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s original culture and interacting with other groups in daily life, integration is the favored option. In this case, some degree of cultural integrity is maintained while, at the same time, the individual as a member of a cultural group seeks to participate as an integral part in the larger social network. Finally, when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination), marginalization results.

These two basic issues were initially approached from the point of view of nondominant cultural groups. However, the dominant group plays a powerful role in influencing the way in which nondominant cultural groups relate (Berry et al., 1977). Adding the views of the larger society produces the right side of Figure 1. From the point of view of the larger society, assimilation, when sought by the dominant group, is termed the “melting pot.” When separation is forced by the dominant group it is called segregation. Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group, is termed exclusion. Finally, when diversity maintenance and equitable participation are widely-accepted features of the society as a whole, integration is called multiculturalism.

The linking of integration with multiculturalism has been emphasized by Garcea (2003), who notes that, in both concepts, there is a joint effort to promote diversity and equity equally. This linkage has been further emphasized by Duncan (2005) who argues that “… it is important to recognize explicitly that multiculturalism is an instrument for integration” (p. 12). Rather than seeing multiculturalism and integration as opposites, we share the view that they are very similar.

It is essential to note that multiculturalism as a concept, and multiculturalism policies, have two main and equally important emphases – the maintenance of heritage cultures and identities (the cultural diversity component) and the full and equitable participation of all ethnocultural groups in the life of the larger society (the social equity and inclusion component). Together, and in balance with each other, it should be possible to achieve a multicultural vision. That is, the concept of “… multiculturalism incorporates the fundamental element of interculturalism which is the emphasis on interaction between cultures … that ha[s] been described as community bridging and bonding” (Jedwab, 2005, pp. 98–99).

However, in some societies there is a common misconception that multiculturalism means only the presence of many independent cultural communities in a society (i.e., only cultural diversity), without the presence of intercultural interaction and equitable participation in the larger society. This view seems to have been the basis of recent assertions in some European societies (e.g., in Germany, The Netherlands, and the UK) that “multiculturalism has failed.” The British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, argued that state multiculturalism in “Britain had encouraged different cultures to live separate lives” and that “the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to all kinds of extremism” (Cameron, 2011). From the perspective outlined here, particularly with reference to multiculturalism as policy, we argue that multiculturalism has not failed because it was not really attempted in these societies, that is, taking into consideration both of the components mentioned. If multiculturalism is viewed and accepted only as the tolerated presence of different cultures in a society, without the simultaneous promotion of inclusion through programs to reduce barriers to equitable participation, then a form of segregation is the correct name for such policies and practices. This view seems to have been recognized by Cameron. However, the proposed solution to the problem of segregation is more homogeneity rather than the pursuit of the dual engagement option articulated in the vision of multiculturalism described above.

One difficulty in discussions of the meaning of multiculturalism has been the simple equating of multiculturalism with cultural diversity. As noted above, the Canadian policy has always been more than just the recognition, promotion, and celebration of cultural diversity; equity and inclusion have been seen as essential elements in the policy. Critics of multiculturalism, such as Bissoondath (1994) in Canada and Glazer (1997) and Moghaddam (2008) in the USA, have diminished the richness and complexity of the concept by focus only on the diversity aspect. They typically see it as leading to social divisiveness and separation. Parekh (2009) in the UK also holds to this narrow meaning: “The term ‘multicultural’ is generally used to refer to societies characterized by diversity, irrespective of whether or not the diversity is exclusively cultural in nature. This is how I use it” (p. 33).

Perhaps more difficult to understand is the equating of the concept of multiculturalism with cultural relativity, which considers that any cultural practice is legitimate, no matter what the laws of the land may state. This view has been espoused by critics who see multiculturalism as allowing any cultural practice to be maintained and transmitted across generations in societies of settlement. One high profile critic (Ali, 2010) has argued that multicultural societies in the Western world are doomed because their policies allow for practices that she claims are fundamental to Islam that contradict the basic values and practices of Western democracies. She misses two key points: The first is that Islam is itself a diverse religion, with some branches being open, tolerant, and supportive of pluralism. This acceptance of diversity in Islam (and in society more generally) is exemplified by the work of the Aga Khan in establishing the Global Center for Pluralism (Aga Khan, 2010). This undermines her claim that Islam is a monolithic, hierarchical, and dogmatic set of beliefs and practices. This kind of overgeneralization about Islam leads to a claim that multicultural societies cannot accommodate Islam, or that Islam cannot adapt to the norms of Western societies. The second point are the clearly stated limits to cultural practice that are contained in the charters, laws, and institutions of many Western democracies. Such limits, while subject to negotiation and possible change (see Adelman & Anctil, 2011), simply do not allow for the claim that “anything goes” in multicultural societies.

The meaning of multiculturalism that we use here is the joint value placed on cultural maintenance (the cultural diversity element) and equitable participation (the intercultural element).

Multiculturalism in a Comparative Perspective

In the past few years there have been a number of comparative analyses (e.g., Kymlicka, 2007, 2012) and empirical reports on the status of multiculturalism in various countries, many of them in Europe. These usually mention the policies regarding the issues of diversity and equity, and some indicators regarding the degree to which a society pursues these two aspects of social organization. The most comprehensive of these is the Multiculturalism Policy Index (MCP Index; Banting & Kymlicka, 2006–2012). On its website (www.queensu.ca/mcp/index.html), the MCP Index is described as “a scholarly research project that monitors the evolution of multiculturalism policies across the Western democracies. The project is designed to provide information about multiculturalism policies in a standardized format that aids comparative research and contributes to the understanding of state-minority relations.” There are three separate indices covering three types of minorities: one index relating to immigrant groups, one relating to historic national minorities, and one relating to indigenous peoples.

The MCP Index includes a set of criteria to assess the degree of promotion of multiculturalism (by policy and practice) in plural societies. It proposes nine criteria with which to place societies on a dimension of multiculturalism acceptance. Among these are the existence of a government policy promoting multiculturalism, a multicultural ministry or secretariat, adoption of multiculturalism in the school curriculum, ethnic representation in the media, exemptions of cultural groups from codes that are rooted in the dominant society (e.g., Sunday closing), allowing dual citizenship, funding of cultural organizations, and funding of bilingual or heritage-language instruction.

Related to the MCP Index are the reports of Bloemraad (2011) and Wright and Bloemraad (2012). Bloemraad (2011) examines the policies and practices of multiculturalism in various countries and tracks changes over the years from 1980 to 2010 using the MCP Index. The rankings on this index put Canada and Australia in first place, followed by Sweden, New Zealand, Belgium, and the UK. Toward the middle are Spain, Portugal, and the USA. Lowest placed are France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Denmark. Of particular interest are The Netherlands, which were rather high in 2000, but dropped to a low score in 2010. This may reflect the recent assertions in the country that multiculturalism has failed there (Vertovec & Wessendorf, 2010).

Wright and Bloemraad (2012) raised the question of whether multiculturalism has a negative impact on the attainment of social cohesion among groups in culturally diverse societies. Using terms in the section on the meaning of multiculturalism (above), the question they consider is whether the presence of cultural diversity in a society undermines the social inclusion (contact and participation, and eventual incorporation) of the various ethnocultural groups. The authors concluded that there is no general relationship, putting to rest any claim that these two core components of multiculturalism are incompatible.

A second international survey develops the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX, 2012). It provides rankings on this index for 31 countries. This survey includes indicators of migrant integration in a number of domains: labor mobility, family reunion, education, political participation, long-term residence, access to nationality, and anti-discrimination laws; it also presents an overall score. The overall rankings place Sweden first place, followed by Portugal, Canada, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, the USA, Italy, Luxembourg, Germany, the UK, Denmark, and France.

A third survey (Vigdor, 2011) is concerned with “Immigrant Assimilation in North America and Europe.” The use of the term “assimilation” in title is rather misleading, since it does not assess the giving up (or loss) of heritage culture, which is part of the usual conception of assimilation; it assesses only immigrant involvement in civic, cultural, and economic domains of the larger receiving society (and provides a composite index). The comparison of immigration countries on overall immigrant incorporation provides the following ranking: Canada, Portugal, USA, Greece, Austria, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy. With respect to naturalization rates, the ranking is Canada, Portugal, The Netherlands, USA, Greece, Austria, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy. When these indicators of incorporation are examined by immigrant origin, the rankings remain much the same: for Muslim immigrants, the ranking is: Canada, USA, Portugal, Spain …; for Chinese immigrants, the ranking is Canada, USA, Portugal, Austria, Spain …; and for Southeast Asian immigrants, the ranking is Canada, USA, Austria, Spain, Greece. The ranking of the countries on these various indices is fairly consistent, and it is based on numerous objective criteria.

Curiously, the rather low ranking of European countries (except for Sweden and Portugal) flies in the face of an agreement reached by the Council of the European Union (2004) on a set of 11 common basic principles (CBPs) for immigrant integration policy in the European Union and a subsequent Communication by the Commission of the European Communities (2005) that contains additional explanations of what this means at (a) the national and (b) EU level and further contextualizes the CPBs within EU policy. Among these principles that promote the core elements of a multiculturalism policy, CBP 8 accepts the right to cultural maintenance: “The practice of diverse cultures and religions is guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and must be safeguarded, unless practices conflict with other inviolable European rights or with national law.” CBP 7 promotes participation: “Frequent interaction between immigrants and Member State citizens is a fundamental mechanism for integration. Shared forums, inter-cultural dialogue, education about immigrants and immigrant cultures, and stimulating living conditions in urban environments enhance the interactions between immigrants and Member State citizens.” CBP 6 maintains that “[a]ccess for immigrants to institutions, as well as to private goods and services, on a basis equal to national citizens and in a nondiscriminatory way is a critical foundation for better integration.” And CBP 4 notes the importance of learning the national language: “Basic knowledge of the host society’s language, history, and institutions is indispensable to integration; enabling immigrants to acquire this basic knowledge is essential to successful integration.” With respect to the process, CBP 1 identifies the integration of migrants and their cultural communities as “… a dynamic, two-way process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and residents of Member States” and the further explanations of this principle outline that “integration is a dynamic, long-term, and continuous two-way process of mutual accommodation … It demands the participation not only of immigrants and their descendants but of every resident.”

Articles in This Special Issue

In this special issue, Frankenberg and her colleagues (2013) review German research on acculturation and the adaptation of young immigrants, first situating this research in German immigration history and policy. The review points to higher rates of emotional and behavioral problems among migrants in most age groups when young migrants are compared with their German peers. For the adolescent group (i.e., ages between 14 and 17 years), there is no clear and consistent difference between migrants and their German counterparts. Research findings on the time trajectory of transcultural adaptation among adolescents are also mixed. The researchers discuss coincidence of acculturation and age-related change as a possible source of the mixed research findings. The paper also provides an overview of risk and protective factors within the German system that may exacerbate adaptation problems among young migrants.

In spite of Russia being one of the most multicultural societies in the world (in terms of demography), this fact has attracted very little research attention. Lebedeva and Tatarko (2013) try to remedy this situation by first describing the current cultural and immigrant diversity in Russia together with the social and psychological problems faced by immigrants in post-Soviet Russia. Taking a mutual acculturation perspective, the authors also present research findings examining three hypotheses in the literature: the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis, and the contact hypothesis. Findings of their studies suggest that measures of security, identity, and perceived threat/discrimination have a significant relationship with ethnic tolerance, mutual attitudes, acculturation strategies and expectations, and the well-being and life satisfaction of both immigrants and members of the larger society.

Verkuyten and Thijs (2013) examine various conceptions of multicultural education in Europe. With reference to The Netherlands, they discuss multilevel quantitative research findings on perceived multicultural education and its effects on interethnic attitudes among young adolescents. The positive effects of multicultural education are suggested to be due to the youngsters’ improved cultural knowledge and understanding, and the establishment of anti-racism norms within the classroom. These two theoretical mechanisms arguably can explain the positive impact of multicultural education on children’s and adolescents’ interethnic attitudes.

The socializing role of sports participation is well recognized and, building on this finding, it has been suggested that participation in sports may reinforce understanding of and respect for cultural diversity and foster migrants’ integration in multicultural societies. Hatzigeorgiadis and colleagues (2013) review the existing literature on the integrative role of sports among individuals and groups with differing cultural backgrounds. They point out that while there may be support for sports participation in promoting integration, this is not without controversies. In addition to promoting interaction among people of different cultural backgrounds, sports participation may help individuals to maintain ties with their own cultural groups. The review also points to sports participation as accentuating cultural differences and thereby evoking tensions. The authors conclude that sports participation per se may not have the strength to achieve the expected integration; rather, sports could provide a common ground where integration can be cultivated.

In the final paper in this special issue, Güngör and her colleagues (2013) look at Islam in Europe. They examine how acculturation contexts and processes affect the religiosity of Muslims (a) across heritage and mainstream cultures, (b) across different acculturating groups, and (c) across different receiving societies. Based on data gathered from four European countries, the researchers found no evidence of a decline in religiosity across the European countries. On the contrary, they found a reaffirmation of religion in acculturating Muslim youths compared with groups in both mainstream and heritage cultures. The studies found that socialization into the Muslim religion is most effective in more cohesive immigrant groups. They also found some indications to suggest that strict forms of religiosity emerge and strengthen in immigrants who live in receiving societies that are less welcoming of immigrants.

Conclusions

As this special issue shows, psychological research on multiculturalism in Europe is alive and well. This research addresses many aspects of cultural identities, intercultural attitudes, psychological and sociocultural adaptations, and the role of various institutions in promoting integration. As emphasized above, by integration we mean people’s joint involvement in, and attachment to, both their heritage culture and the larger society of settlement. This usage corresponds with the 2005 Communication by the Commission of the European Communities. However, as noted above, this statement seems to be neither wellknown nor widely implemented.

Despite variations in the focus of the articles in this issue, there are some common themes. It is clear from these papers that immigrants in Europe are not having an easy transition during the acculturation process. There is much evidence of discrimination and other forms of rejection and exclusion, both in personal intercultural encounters, and from public institutions. The existing research literature tells us that these forms of rejection by the larger society usually lead to negative intercultural attitudes among immigrants. This is an example of attitude reciprocity, in which rejection from one party is answered with rejection by the other. This rejection can take the form of immigrants turning away from involvement with the larger society, their reaffirmation of heritage culture and religion, and more intense immigrant ingroup cohesion. Members of the larger society’s perception of this turning away on the part of immigrants can then be interpreted by them as immigrants rejecting the society in which they have settled. This results in a spiral of mutual rejection, with the net result of greater cultural distance between immigrants and the larger society. This, of course, is opposed to the fundamental goal of multiculturalism policy, which is to achieve mutual accommodation. Combined with the issues outlined in this Editorial, the papers in this special issue reinforce the need for multiculturalism policy and practice in Europe to turn away from a focus on the mere presence of cultural diversity (and its acceptance or rejection by the larger society) to the second dimension of multiculturalism – the promotion of equitable participation of all groups, and the reduction of barriers to such participation.

While the papers presented here shed light on many aspects of multicultural living in Europe, much research remains to be done on these issues as well as on others. In particular, there is a need to seek out the processes that may underlie these phenomena, and to develop the theoretical basis for such processes. Some progress is evident in this regard, including the use of a few specific hypotheses (such as the multiculturalism, integration, and contact hypotheses) and of broad theories (such as social identity theory and threat theory).

In addition, there is a need for a broader regional representation of research, since the presence of multiculturalism (as demographic diversity, and as a public policy response to such diversity) is highly variable across European states. In this endeavor, Europe may serve as a comparative framework for examining psychological dimensions of multiculturalism. Some societies have long histories of immigration and settlement, others are rather new at this. Some have high proportions of their population who were not born in the country, others have much lower proportions. In some countries, multiculturalism policies are in place, but not in others. There are also varying historical legacies that naturally need to be taken into account. Some countries have a relatively long history as unified states (such as Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, the UK), others formed only 150 or so years ago (such as Germany and Italy), still others have existed as independent states for less than a century (such as Ireland and Norway), and some are still in transition from periods of turmoil and seeking a new national identity (such as the Baltic states and much of Eastern Europe). Do these differing factors influence the psychological features of multiculturalism, such as national identity, multicultural ideology, prejudice, and discrimination? Europe offers a valuable natural setting to tease out these issues, and to contribute to a broader international understanding of how to move forward in accommodating cultural diversity and achieving equity. The coordinators and the editor hope that this special issue of European Psychologist will be read among academic researchers and teachers as well as community stakeholders and practitioners who are interested in and responsible for finding ways to promote better community relations in Europe. We hope that this special issue will provide the knowledge base for changes in multicultural policies, and in public and personal attitudes, which may in turn lead to improved intercultural relationships in the diverse European societies.