Search

Debates and controversies over the governance of religious diversity are important features of the social and political landscape in all five regions covered in this collection. All have historical as well as contemporary forms of these debates that have had a significant impact on not just the structures and forms of governance but also on the very identity of each state as it has grappled, and continues to grapple, with religious diversity and the issues it raises. This final contribution presents an inter-regional comparative analysis and findings of different modes of state-religion connections between our different regions, following on from the discussions in the individual contributions of the collection focused on intra-regional analyses. Moreover, central to state-religion relations is the idea of political secularism and so we offer a definition of political secularism from which we can compare countries and regions. We assess the idea of political secularism against our typology of modes of governance of religious diversity and explore convergences and divergences between our regions along three conceptual lines: the idea of secularism, the idea of freedom of religion, and the relationship between national identity and religion.

The question of how to reconcile diversity and integration has occupied public debates, political agendas and social sciences for decades. This working paper provides a brief outline of how the project Negotiating Diversity in Expanded European Public Spaces (PLURISPACE) addresses these matters. Our point of departure is that questions pertaining to the governing and recognition of diversity in Europe cannot be properly addressed without at the same time taking into account the multilevel character of European public space, the multiple characters of the groups (national/religion based etc.), and the multiple modes of integration. Within such a complex European space, we identify four policy/theoretical approaches to diversity management and understanding of public space: multiculturalism, interculturalism, transnationalism and cosmopolitanism. Each ‘ism’ has its own conception of public space, diversity, equality and solidarity. Our main aim is to contribute to the normativities that inform the theory and practice of integration and diversity governance in Europe.

This case study is part of a series of in-depth reports on religiously motivated violent radicalisation - and resilience to it - in 12 countries. The series examines periods in which religious radicalisation and violence has escalated and analyses relevant policy and political discourses surrounding them. While seeking to identify factors that drove radicalisation and violence in each country, the case studies also critically assess programmes of prevention and resilience-building, identifying good practices. This series was produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, secularism and religiously inspired radicalisation. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Profile provides a brief overview of religious diversity and its governance in the above-named state. It is one of 23 such profiles produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, state-religion relations and religiously inspired radicalisation on four continents. More detailed assessments are available in our multi-part Country Reports and Country Cases. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This paper seeks to develop an analytical reflection on the normative basis for state-religion relations and the governance of religious diversity. It is also a sociological reflection on viable forms of religious diversity governance. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Profile provides a brief overview of religious diversity and its governance in the above-named state. It is one of 23 such profiles produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, state-religion relations and religiously inspired radicalisation on four continents. More detailed assessments are available in our multi-part Country Reports and Country Cases. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Report offers a detailed assessment of religious diversity and violent religious radicalisation in the above-named state. It is part of a series covering 23 countries (listed below) on four continents. More basic information about religious affiliation and state-religion relations in these states is available in our Country Profiles series. This report was produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, secularism and religiously inspired radicalisation. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Report offers a detailed assessment of religious diversity and violent religious radicalisation in the above-named state. It is part of a series covering 23 countries (listed below) on four continents. More basic information about religious affiliation and state-religion relations in these states is available in our Country Profiles series. This report was produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, secularism and religiously inspired radicalisation. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Report offers a detailed assessment of religious diversity and violent religious radicalisation in the above-named state. It is part of a series covering 23 countries (listed below) on four continents. More basic information about religious affiliation and state-religion relations in these states is available in our Country Profiles series. This report was produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, secularism and religiously inspired radicalisation. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

This Country Profile provides a brief overview of religious diversity and its governance in the above-named state. It is one of 23 such profiles produced by GREASE, an EU-funded research project investigating religious diversity, state-religion relations and religiously inspired radicalisation on four continents. More detailed assessments are available in our multi-part Country Reports and Country Cases. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 770640.

In this chapter we engage with some recent authors who believe that an alternative to multiculturalism must be sought in order to understand and live with diversity. These authors are not anti-diversity, on the contrary, but they share the view that multiculturalism is no longer a persuasive intellectual or policy approach. For example, the Council of Europe’s White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (2008) included the finding that the majority of practitioners and NGOs across Europe had come to the conclusion that multiculturalism was no longer fit for purpose, and needed to be replaced by a form of interculturalism. Similar views were expressed in the UNESCO World Report, Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue (2008). More recently still, Ted Cantle (2012: 2) has described interculturalism ‘as an opportunity to replace multiculturalism as a conceptual and policy framework’, while Maxwell et al (2012: 429) maintain that ‘Interculturalism represents a gain over Multiculturalism while pursuing the same set of most uncontroversial political ends…’. These statements therefore invite the question: in what ways – if at all - is interculturalism different, substantively or otherwise, from multiculturalism?

Through offering a normative conceptualisation of a national case, Britain, I ask what is the relationship between the post-immigration normative project of accommodating citizens-marked-by-origin and the managing of current flows of migrations and mobilities? While multiculturalism requires reconceiving citizenship and shared identities, it has assumed that a collectivity of citizens in the form of a state/polity has the right and the capacity to control immigration and that migrants want to be and should be accepted as citizens. But what if the nature of immigration (and other relevant circumstances) change such that difference is no longer so salient an issue, citizenship no longer seems to be so normatively prized by migrants; and immigration is less amenable to control? Does multiculturalism still have traction in these new circumstances? British multiculturalism was developed in a context of immigration control and does not challenge the right of the state to control immigration, while insisting that it must not be exercised in ways that are discriminatory or stigmatising in relation to the composite and overlapping criteria of race, ethnicity and religion that are at the heart of post-immigration British multiculturalism. While a cosmopolitan version of multiculturalism is also present in Britain and is largely compatible with a more political, communitarian national multiculturalism, the two seem to have incompatible views on national identity concerns and so on immigration control. This is seriously problematic for progressive politics today but a solution is not clear.

Multiculturalism is often criticised and misunderstood. But it still delivers better results than any alternative that’s been tried. Simon Thompson interviews Tariq Modood about empathy and commitment in academic life, and a critically evolving multiculturalism.

In this article, we consider the implications of the 'Prevent' strand of the government's counter-terrorism strategy for the UK state’s engagement with Muslims. We argue that the logics of Prevent have been highly problematic for state–Muslim engagement. Nevertheless, we suggest that the characterisation of state approaches to engaging Muslims as a form of discipline is incomplete without an analysis of: first, differences in practices, habits and perspectives across governance domains; second, variations in approach and implementation between levels of governance; and third, the agency of Muslims who engage with the state. Through this approach we show how attention to the situated practices of governance reveals the contested nature of governing through Prevent.

The concern of this chapter, as that of the book as a whole, is to explore contemporary relationships between Muslim minorities and the state, with a particular focus upon structural and cultural dynamics. In this regard the case of Britain is illustrative. This is because an analysis of political and institutional responses to Muslim ‘difference’ in Britain details a pattern of engagement that has evolved over a period of time. This can be framed in terms of rising agendas of racial equality and multiculturalism to which Muslims have become central – even while they have challenged important aspects of these. This implies that these developments have neither been linear nor unproblematic, and have been characterised by various ongoing contestations and revisions. According to some authors, what this engagement has accomplished presently looks to be in retreat and at best remains uncertain.

This article provides a historically informed analysis of the contemporary incorporation of Islam and Muslims into an idea of common – national – membership in the United States and Britain. It shows that there is a current movement towards synthesis between religious and national identities by Muslims themselves, and explores the ways in which this synthesis is occurring within rich and dynamic public spheres in societies that have historically included and incorporated other religious groups. The authors argue that both countries are wrestling with the extent to which they accommodate Muslims in ways that allow them to reconcile their faith and citizenship commitments, and that the British ‘establishment’ is no less successful at achieving this than secular republicanism in the US.

In this discussion we will consider some of the literature that seeks to take stock of the challenges and opportunities for liberal citizenship regimes that follow processes of migration; a body of thought that has variously centred on ways to reconcile political unity with ethnic, cultural and religious difference (e.g., Young, 1990; Taylor, 1992; Kymlicka, 1995; Parekh, 2000; Modood, 2007). In addition to this prevailing ‘canon’ there is a sustained and interdisciplinary body of theory and research exploring configurations of national membership, within and across a number of European polities, especially in terms of citizenship and national identity (e.g., Brubaker, 2001; Joppke, 2004; Koopmans et al, 2005; Banting and Kymlicka, 2006; Jacobs and Rea, 2007; Uberoi; 2008; Joppke, 2009; Meer, 2010; Faas, 2010; Triandafyllidou et al, 2011; Modood, 2013). We begin by noting the perpetual role that migration plays in unsettl ing existing configurations, before elaborating a rationale for remaking forms of collective memb ership in a manner that includes new groups too. Multiculturalism, we argue, is the foremost example of this even though its political fate remains uncertain. To support our reading we positively contrast it with categories such as interculturalism and superdiversity.

What is sometimes talked about as the ‘post-secular’ or a ‘crisis of secularism’ is, in Western Europe, quite crucially to do with the reality of multiculturalism. By which I mean not just the fact of new ethno-religious diversity but the presence of a multiculturalist approach to this diversity, namely: the idea that equality must be extended from uniformity of treatment to include respect for difference; recognition of public/private interdependence rather than dichotomized as in classical liberalism; the public recognition and institutional accommodation of minorities; the reversal of marginalisation and a remaking of national citizenship so that all can have a sense of belonging to it. I think that equality requires that this ethno-cultural multiculturalism should be extended to include state-religion connexions in Western Europe, which I characterise as ‘moderate secularism’, based on the idea that political authority should not be subordinated to religious authority yet religion can be a public good which the state should assist in realising or utilising. I discuss here three multiculturalist approaches that contend this multiculturalising of moderate secularism is not the way forward. One excludes religious groups and secularism from the scope of multiculturalism (Kymlicka); another largely limits itself to opposing the ‘othering’ of groups such as Jews and Muslims (Jansen); and the third argues that moderate secularism is the problem not the solution (Bhargava).

This report explores the emergence of Building the Bridge, an organisation that was established to implement the previous Government’s Prevent agenda. Commentators have argued that the city of Bristol managed to turn the implementation of Prevent into a genuine collaboration between public authorities and Bristol’s Muslim communities, which manifested itself in the re-branding of Prevent as ‘Building the Bridge’. Building the Bridge emerged as a participatory mechanism for communityengagement that established a new institutionalised relationship between Bristol City Council, the Police, various statutory agencies and Bristol’s diverse Muslim community. Building the Bridge was widely celebrated as a story of local success and a model of good practice, particularly in comparison with how Prevent had been implemented and received elsewhere. Our research examined in greater detail to what extent Building the Bridge facilitated a genuinely participatory engagement betweenpublic authorities and Bristol’s Muslim communities. In this report, we discuss our findings regarding the organisations’ dynamics of participation and representation, the kinds of activities initiated by Building the Bridge, and offer some reflections on a possible future for Building the Bridge, beyond Prevent. Although its activities were chiefly concerned with the overall aim of preventing violent extremism, Building the Bridge enabled interventions that addressed some key community grievances and facilitated the engagement of young people, women and mosque communities in the city. For a short period of time, Prevent funding enabled a regulated form of community engagement,some of which has continued even after the withdrawal of resources.

In the twentieth century the United States was thought of as a place of racial and ethnic diversity but Europe thought of itself as a continent of white nation-states. Twenty-first century Europe, however, is going to be more like the USA – with the difference that the principal minority will be Muslims and the principal fault line may not be black/white but secular-Christian/ Muslim. What form should integration take in this socio-political landscape? What implications are there for a continent that thinks it is secular but where state support for religion is routine; and for Christianity as a cultural marker of Europe? I suggest some possible scenarios after having identified ‘group difference’ as the key concept by which to understand the normative orientations, and their implicit sociologies, of assimilation, individualist-integration, cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.

Pode ser que todas as tentativas de modelos de integração estejam em crise. Contudo, podemos ter uma ideia melhor das questões se, primeiro, reconhecermos que os discursos de integração e multiculturalismo são exercícios de conceitualização da diferença pós-imigração e que, por isso, funcionam em três níveis distintos: como sociologia (implícita), como resposta política e como visão do todo ao qual a diferença vai ser integrada. O termo “diferença” refere-se, primariamente, à forma como as pessoas são identificadas: como elas mesmas se identificam, como identificam os outros e como são identificadas pelos outros. Sugiro alguns possíveis cenários após haver identificado a “diferença de grupo” como principal conceito para entender as orientações normativas e suas sociologias implícitas, de assimilação, integração individual, cosmopolitismo e multiculturalismo. Cada modo oferece uma abordagem diferente sobre liberdade, igualdade e unidade cívica. O alargamento, a hifenização e a haver uma integração na qual todos os cidadãos não somente têm direitos, mas, também, um sentimento de pertencimento ao todo, tal qual ao seu próprio “pequeno pelotão”.

The articles in this volume deal with the role of Christianity in the definition of European identity. Europeans often identify advanced civilizations with secularity. But religion is very much alive in other fast developing countries of the world. In Europe, nevertheless, the organized churches very much wanted to stress the Christian character of European identity, and this engendered a lively protest focusing on the perceived threat to the secular European tradition. Also, Europe is facing its greatest cultural challenge in the demand of Turkey to be admitted as a member, and in the demand of many Muslims in Europe, often citizens of the countries in which they live, to be recognized in their difference and at the same time integrated in the European national and supranational institutions. These essays were written upon the invitation by the previous President of the European Union, Romano Prodi.

In the aftermath of the events of 11 September the rhetoric associated with Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilization’ is thick in the air (Huntington, 1993; reprinted in The Sunday Times, London, 14 October, 2001 because it was thought to be especially relevant today). Despite official protestations to the contrary, many in the West think that the underlying problem is not terrorism or even Islamic fundamentalism, but Islam, i.e. a rival and inferior civilization. This pointing the finger a...

Ethno-religious diversity is a fact of Western European cities and will grow and spread. Living in these locations today requires a respect for ‘difference’ as well as a sense of commonalities; these are required at the level of the local and the city but also at the level of the national. A framework of anti-discrimination and processes of uncoercive cultural encounters are also necessary but are not sufficient. We also need to have the possibility of sharing a macro-symbolic sense of belonging. With this in mind I consider a number of modes of integration. I argue that multiculturalism is a mode of integration, which can be contrasted with other modes such as assimilation, individualist-integration and cosmopolitanism, and like the others it is based on the core democratic values of liberty, equality and fraternity/unity. My contention is that even though multiculturalism is unpopular with some European publics today, integration is not possible without including it within an integration strategy. I go on to consider what kinds of ‘difference’ mark the real divisions today and into the future. I conclude that one of the most profound questions Europeans are being forced to consider is about the place of religion in the public space.