Search

This paper compares the 'laique' and 'multiculturalist' conceptions of ethnic minorities' 'integration', which prevail in France, for the former, and in the UK, for the latter. It is argued that beyond their surface antagonism there is a clear convergence between the two approaches. Indeed, the British have given up on multiculturalism whose shortcomings have been well documented and publicised. Moreover, they have reactivated the much criticised notion of 'integration' through the use of the expression 'interculturalism', which has become the new buzz word. Conversely, the French have understood that it is useless and counterproductive to keep on denying the strength of community feelings and bonds, and open up tentatively to the expression and the recognition of individual and group specificities. This is exemplified by their frequent use of the phrase 'open laicite' which describes this new trend. For both nations, it is now essential to reinforce 'social cohesion' said to have unravelled dangerously in recent years. The strict regulation of unwanted immigration is also advocated at European level by both countries to control the rise of 'hyper-diversity' which is often blamed for the failure of the integration process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review arises from a series of multidisciplinary Franco-British workshops which were supported by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). More than 30 participants from a range of institutions and agencies were involved in compiling the material in this review (Appendix I). The workshops offered an opportunity to exchange ideas from research on the relationships between migration, health and well-being in Britain and France. In the following discussion we compare and contrast experiences in the two countries, with the aim of assessing the importance of international, national and local contexts, in their various cultural, social and political dimensions, for the relationships of interest. Drawing on these ideas, we suggest the definition of a future international research agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immigration changed the ethnic composition of Western European societies. The new populations brought a series of culturally determined practices that challenged the liberal framework of values of the receiving states. Despite the existence of important variations between the official discourses and the actual policies finally implemented, the responses to those challenges varied with the models of integration defined by each country to deal with ethnic diversity. In this article, we study the policies designed and implemented by the United Kingdom and France against "female genital mutilation" practices, analyzing how both British and French policies affected these types of practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article scrutinizes the widely held belief that British and French colonial models have influenced each country’s immigrant integration structures. It assesses the core assumptions underlying the argument: that British colonial and integration policies have relied on indirect rule of groups defined by race or ethnicity; and that corresponding French policies have emphasized direct rule and have been highly assimilationist. It demonstrates that the two countries are not as different as often portrayed. It also pinpoints the specific paths through which colonial legacies influenced integration policies, while rejecting the thesis that colonial institutions have broadly informed integration policies in Britain or France. The article thus challenges a series of received ideas, replacing them with a more precise assessment of the relations between the colonial past and the integration present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]