Search

Policy discourse around 'community cohesion' has displaced liberal multiculturalist and anti-racist approaches with a much narrower focus on the promotion of 'British values' and, for minority communities, through a 'faith' agenda. We argue that these developments derive from the predominance of the doctrine of communitarianism within the contemporary policy terrain, influencing both New Labour and the Conservatives. The convergence of this with neoliberal social and economic imperatives has created a discourse of 'conditional citizenship' for Muslim communities particularly. There is a major policy contradiction where faith based approaches are promoted on one hand, but, in the context of transnational Islamist terror, lead to whole Muslim communities being pathologised as 'insufficiently British' on the other. We discuss the 'Trojan Horse schools' affair in Birmingham in 2014 as an example of this. We conclude in calling for an urgent refocussing of the debate toward secular approaches in policy, alongside looking at the specific economic and social conditions that we argue are the root cause of breakdowns in community cohesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss aspects of professor Tariq Modood's contribution and response to the debate on multiculturalism in Great Britain. They are critical of the measures undertaken by Modood to not consider the nature of the religious movements and organizations. They also comment on the increasing accommodation of religion into social policy.

This paper seeks to critically examine the emergence of contemporary religious fundamentalisms and how they have been able to acquire influence in a way that has opened new ‘fault lines’ within multiculturalist public policy discourse. Specifically, the paper is interested in understanding the curiously paradoxical place of religion and faith based groupings in the contemporary multicultural polity, and the confusion, and in some instances conflicts, this has caused amongst the Left. This is illustrated through an extended examination of the Shabina Begum case concerning a Muslim schoolgirl and her demands to wear the jilbab, a specific religious headscarf, to school. It is argued that, in part, these ideological fault lines have resulted from an uncritical embrace by some progressives of ideas associated with postmodernist thinking; in particular the uncritical assertion of virtues of anti-universalism and cultural relativism. This then leaves an urgent task for progressives to think through some alternatives based on a re-articulation of a new political discourse of egalitarianism which is unashamedly universalist and secular. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

'User Involvement' has become the new mantra in Public Services with professionals constantly being reminded that 'user knows best'. The purpose of this paper is to ask where the preoccupation with 'the User' comes from and to pose some questions about what 'User Involvement' actually means. Within our paper we see three issues as central within this. The first is a consideration of the historical antecedents of the discourse of 'User Involvement', focusing in on the struggles over British welfare that took place around tile late 1970s--early 1980s. This forms the context from which we seek to understand and critique the New Labour project in relation to the massive expansion of regulatory frameworks. We argue that, far from enabling the delivery of high quality integrated services that truly reflect the interests of current and future users, these policies represent the further commodification of basic human needs and welfare. Finally, it has become apparent the current 'User' discourse has assumed contradictory manifestations, in particular the emergence of groupings of 'professional users' who participate in the formation of state policy as 'expert consultants'. We conclude by arguing for an approach in which user perspectives are neither privileged nor subjugated, but are situated in a process of creative critical dialogue with professionals, which is linked to the development of a concept of welfare driven by emancipatory rather than regulatory imperatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]