A SWOT Analysis of Multiculturalism in Canada, Europe, Mauritius, and South Korea

TY - JOUR

T1 - A SWOT Analysis of Multiculturalism in Canada, Europe, Mauritius, and South Korea

AU - Ng, Eddy S.

AU - Bloemraad, Irene

N1 - Funding Information: Table 1 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses associated with multiculturalism, as well as the opportunities and threats presented by multiculturalism to nations and societies. Strengths and weaknesses are derived from multiculturalism as it is currently practiced or implemented in the countries our contributors studied. Opportunities and threats represent the potential benefits and risks that may be derived from multiculturalism, and thus needs to be managed, as discussed in the articles of this volume. Table 1. SWOT Analysis of Multiculturalism From Around the World. Favorable Unfavorable Past/present Strengths Weaknesses 1. Fostering national identity 1. Creation of “faultlines” 2. Promotion of cultural tolerance and modernization 2. Separate and parallel lives 3. Incorporation of ethnocultural minorities 3. Obstacle to equality in liberal societies Potential Opportunities Threats 1. Attraction of talents 1. Incompatible with Western, liberal values 2. Source of national competitive advantage 2. Burden to state welfare 3. Political gains; representative bureaucracy 3. Threat to nationalism and national identity In general, countries that embrace multiculturalism report more positive outcomes in the form of better incorporation of ethnic minorities into society and greater tolerance among ethnocultural groups or, at a minimum, no negative relationship between adopting multicultural policies and various integration outcomes, among immigrants or the native-born (see Bloemraad & Wright, 2014 ; Hooghe & de Vroome, 2015 , this issue). Conversely, societies that demand an assimilation mode of acculturation report poorer ethnic minority and immigrant integration and experience backlash against multiculturalism from its citizens. To that end, politicians in assimilationist societies are quick to denounce multiculturalism and declare its failure. In reality, the failure might flow from a mismatch between multiculturalism as an ideology and as a public policy. For a multiculturalism policy to be effective, assimilationist societies must be prepared to change elite and public attitudes and exercise greater tolerance toward those who are different from the culture of the dominant group. This may take the form of exercising “strategic tolerance” as in the case of South Korea, or adopting and adapting to each other’s culture, as in the case of Mauritius. Furthermore, countries with weak or no multiculturalism policies, such as Denmark and Germany, often have to compensate with either strong antidiscrimination or strong assimilation programs in order to remove barriers to participation or to incorporate ethnic minorities and immigrants into host societies. Moreover, the same countries that espouse an assimilationist approach to immigrants also have strong ethnocentric policies such as denial of citizenship to children of immigrants or proscriptions on dual citizenship. Such policies are arguably incompatible with globalization and a goal of increasing the talent flow to countries facing population declines since global citizenship and immigration (having two or more passports) are touted for fostering international business and trade ( Tung, 2008 ). We offer a few suggestions for future research to extend our knowledge and understanding of the role of multiculturalism within the context of increasing globalization and international migration. Based on our review of the articles in this special issue, it is evident that multiculturalism, when implemented well, promotes ethnic minority and immigration integration in host societies. It can also be implemented in ways that do not inevitably produce “backlash” among the native-born majority population. However, multiculturalism is subject to critiques for arguably promoting parallel lives and excessive ties with the immigrants’ countries of origin. It is possible, however, that ethnic diasporas and transnational immigrant networks can be conceived in a more positive way, when situated with a global economy; they might aid in facilitating trade and producing economic benefits for immigrant receiving countries. We suggest future research examine the cost and benefits that are derived from multiculturalism using this more global lens. Claims of failed multiculturalism are also frequently attributed to how acts of cultural maintenance undermine ethnic minorities’ or immigrants’ ability to gain socioeconomic mobility. However, the context and environment in which multiculturalism is implemented has rarely been considered. The interaction between multiculturalism policy and other institutions or structures that affect socioeconomic outcomes needs to be better studied. This could focus on the intersection of multiculturalism and welfare state arrangement, or multiculturalism in different sorts of educational systems, investigating how multicultural curricula interact with the use of exams to allocate students to different schools or academic tracks. Third, social contacts with dissimilar others have been shown to increase the acceptance of dissimilar others ( Frølund Thomsen, 2012 ). However, Putnam (2007) also finds that increasing diversity can result in decreased trust among racial groups in the United States. To the extent that this is also true elsewhere, it may be worth investigating the levels of diversity in which social contact may be helpful to promote greater tolerance and acceptance of ethnocultural groups and immigrants, and the conditions under which social contact becomes negative for intergroup relations. One recent meta-analysis finds little evidence that diversity, per se, undermines social capital and trust, but if negative effects exist, they might occur most at the neighborhood level ( van der Meer & Tolsma, 2014 ). This points to the importance of studying actual interpersonal interactions on streets, in workplaces, schools, and businesses, as well as examining how local diversity policies might promote or impede intergroup relations. In closing, we wish to thank Regine Bendl for her assistance early in the process of putting together this special journal issue, and we thank the following reviewers who generously shared their time and expertise in contributing to the peer-review process for this special issue; we also thank a number of additional reviewers who preferred to remain anonymous. Tanuja Argawala University of New Delhi Naseem Aumeerally University of Mauritius Keith Banting Queen’s University Salvador Barragan Thompson Rivers University Ana Canen Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Anna Caroline Coester European University Viadrina Rana Haq Laurentian University Alex Haslam University of Queensland Thomas Hylland Eriksen University of Oslo Thomas Huddleston Migration Policy Group Sunmin Kim University of California, Berkeley Greg Kim-Ju Sacramento State University Anna Korteweg University of Toronto Will Kymlicka Queen’s University David Lehman University of Cambridge Timothy Lim California State University, Los Angeles Derek McGhee University of Southampton Maheendrenath Motah University of Technology, Mauritius Tianna Paschel University of Chicago Robert Prey Simon Fraser University Elmas Schlüter Justus Liebig Universität Graziella Moraes Silva IFCS/UFRJ Brazil Phil Triadafilopoulos University of Toronto Rogier van Reekum Erasmus University Iain Watson Ajou University Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article is supported in part by the F.C. Manning Chair in Economics and Business at Dalhousie University and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, in Toronto, Canada. 1. Two recent special issues (e.g., “Multiculturalism in Europe” in European Psychologist ; Berry & Sam, 2013 ; “Multiculturalism: Beyond Ethnocultural Diversity and Contestations” in International Journal of Intercultural Relations ; Berry, 2013b ) have devoted space to the discourse and debates on multiculturalism; thus, we will not repeat them here. 2. Separatist desires might come from an immigrant-origin minority group, such as the Amish in the United States or Hutterites in Canada, or from longer standing national or indigenous groups, reflected for instance in many Francophone Quebecers (French Canadians) and Aboriginal Canadians’ rejection of multiculturalism. For the latter, multiculturalism’s integrationist objective is understood as at odds with aspirations of nationhood and self-determination ( Ghosh, 2012 ; Winter, 2014 ). 3. See Lindblom (1959) ; also see Wells (2013) on the Harper Government approach to incrementalism. 4. Culture as defined by Hofstede (1983 , p. 76) is “the collective mental programming,” and is part of the conditioning we share with other members of the same group. 5. Immigrants, particularly those who are first generation, draw heavily from their premigration culture to forge a new life; they may go into cultural preservation mode for survival ( Foner, 1997 ). As a result, ethnic minorities and immigrants who are culturally distant from their host country nationals are said to maintain separate and parallel lives. Publisher Copyright: © 2015 SAGE Publications

PY - 2015/5/21

Y1 - 2015/5/21

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927784324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927784324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0002764214566500

DO - 10.1177/0002764214566500

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:84927784324

SN - 0002-7642

VL - 59

SP - 619

EP - 636

JO - American Behavioral Scientist

JF - American Behavioral Scientist

IS - 6

ER -