Political concepts are intrinsically polysemous. For many of them, there is no universal definition that comes without dispute. In this essay, I will argue that political concepts are subject to contestation due to the fact that humans and societies are not static, we are subject to constant change because of environment or culture for example. Moreover, an individual’s own experiences can have significant value on the understanding of concepts, as we also have the ability to shape politics and society. To understand why political concepts are contested, I will analyze the concept of multiculturalism focusing on Giovanni Sartori’s theories of ‘conceptual stretching’ and ‘parochialism’ while also assessing key scholars’ perspectives on the contestability of multiculturalism.
In order to assess why concepts are subject to contestation, I think it is important to outline what concepts are, and why political concepts in particular are more likely to be contested. Concepts are abstract ideas that act as tools to enable us to make sense of the world by analyzing and explaining said subjects. Taking for example, a ‘table’, the characteristics that make a table a table may consist of a flat surface with one or more supports that elevate it off the ground. The concept of a table is not really contested as the meaning and utility of a table is one that is universally agreed. (Heywood, 2013) Political concepts, however, are subject to much more contestation. Politics at its core is a social activity and it follows the logic that debates would surround the definition. Ideas such as multiculturalism can have different interpretations to different people as factors such as religion, culture and gender for example inevitably shape the way we make sense of the world, which is why disagreement and controversy over these concepts can run so deep, especially since the way in which we interpret concepts can have a profound capacity to influence action. Walter Bryce Gaille recognized this and coined the phrase ‘essentially contested concept’ to refer to this subset of concepts that can be endlessly disputed. ‘reasonable men may argue interminably without ever reaching the true meaning and implications of the concept’. (Gaille, 1956)
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The surge in popularity of right-wing nationalist parties in recent years has brought the topic of Europe’s relationship with religious and ethnic minority groups into the front of current political debates. Multiculturalism is exactly that of a contested concept as decades of the debate have brought no clarity to what exactly comes to define multiculturalism. In regard to contestability, we can look at a country like the UK that upholds fundamental values such as individualism, compared to a country where its culture emphasizes community before the individual, and see how the concept of multiculturalism may be interpreted so differently. Several variants of multiculturalism, therefore, have developed such as ‘conservative’ multiculturalism which seeks to assimilate the minority groups into the majority or ‘pluralist’ multiculturalism which aims to support and protect minority groups and gives them differential rights’ (Chin, 2017, p.20)
In a world that is increasingly politicized, these social and cultural differences play a huge part in influencing the discourse around the essentially contested concept that is multiculturalism. Essentially, multiculturalism concerns the ideas about the legal and political accommodation of diverse minority groups. It is something that existed and exists within humanity where diversity is respected and people from different cultures have existed side by side. However, there is a historically specific occurrence that scholars have referred to as the ‘master narrative’ which concerns a rise and fall account of multiculturalism across Western democracies. (Kymlicka, 2019) To understand such phenomena, it may be useful to refer to Giovanni Sartori’s (1970) notion of conceptual stretching, known as the ‘distortion that occurs when a concept does not fit the new cases’ (Collier and Mahon, 1993).
When thinking of the concept of multiculturalism, one might think of the word ‘equality’. Writing about America, Taylor (1992) observed that the politics of equality equated to sameness, in which the liberal state took a neutral stance to multiculturalism. This has not come without criticism however as sameness often implies assimilation as the ideal which in turn oppresses those minority groups. Additionally, the UK took a policy approach to multiculturalism regarded as ‘Britishness’ which entailed embracing diversity through common values through a plural identity. This liberalist approach was cemented with the Race Relations Act of 1968 where it became a legal offense to discriminate on the basis of race. Nonetheless, there were strains in government over race relations were at the same time tighter immigration laws were imposed and Roy Jenkins who was perceived to be excessively dedicated to race relation laws was removed from Home Office. (Wadia and Allwood, 2012) Both the Race Relations Act of 1968 and the removal of Roy Jenkins transpiring in the same period is symbolic and demonstrate the internal complexity (Gallie, 1956) of what multiculturalism is. Through this analysis, we can see the problems with ‘conceptual stretching’ broadening the use of terms. There is a paradoxical nature to the concept of multiculturalism. It increases the equality for minorities and also acknowledges them, yet through the policies enacted, it arguably creates inequality too, and fragments social cohesion. Conceptual stretching thus limits our ability to reach ‘stable concepts and a shared understanding of categories’ (Collier and Mahon, 1993, p.845)
The presence of ‘parochialism’ can also be attested to the contestation of multiculturalism. Sartori (1994, p.19) proposed that it is the inclination of writers to ‘self-tailor’ terminology in the context of single-country studies. This is unlike conceptual stretching as it slims the term to have particular applications instead. The ‘fall’ of multiculturalism in the UK often described in the master narrative can be traced back to this point. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative Party in her campaign drew upon the aforementioned ‘Britishness’ of the nation but distinguished. ‘British character’ and invoked the language of cultural difference. On the large-scale immigration at the time, she said ‘Some people do feel swamped if streets they have lived in… are really now quite, quite different (Thatcher, 1978) The abuse of language circumvented previous notions of race and paved the idea that people of ethnic minority groups are inherently unable to integrate to British society because of their different culture. (Chin, 2017, p.142) The conservative government’s emphasis on Britishness to be accepted nationally meant that the concept of multiculturalism was skewed as such. The Education Act of 1988 encompassed British history, Christianity, and the English language as the focus. (Wadia and Allwood, 2012) This meant policies of assimilation became necessary and even systemic if minorities wanted to be socially accepted. The concept of multiculturalism in America on the other hand was increasingly politicized and in the wake of the civil rights movement, a study by the National Education Association (NEA) deployed the word multicultural in education as ‘the right of racial and ethnic minority groups to be included in the textbooks… [that] white is not always right…’ (Thomas, 1975 in Chin, 2017 p.14) Unlike the UK, the concept of multiculturalism took form in defying the dominance of white, Christian values.
In response to the ‘fall’ of multiculturalism, the term ‘post-multiculturalism’ emerged as a new way to create a more inclusive national identity by rejecting the policies of multiculturalism by adopting a more pluralistic model from the monolithic ‘Britishness’. In post-multiculturalism literature, there is an emphasis on embracing the traditions and customs of different ethnic groups. Alibhai-Brown (2000) referred to this as the ‘3S’ model in the UK: samosas, steel drums and saris. Cultural symbols like these embody a celebration of diversity to be preserved and treated respectfully by others. It has not come without criticism, however, as Kymlicka (2019) notes it ignores prevalent issues of socioeconomic and political inequality. It simply does not address contemporary problems that religious and ethnic diversity groups face that are often systemic. Rather, post-multiculturalism appears misguided due to misinterpretation of multiculturalism and the fact it is dead. There is evidence of the successes of multiculturalism. The Eurobarometer (2007) found that ‘almost three-quarters of EU citizens believe that people with a different background… enrich the cultural life of their country. Yet, in a post-Brexit society, scholars have noted that the debate whilst attempting to resolve issues concerning immigration, could further polarise identity politics regarding multiculturalism. (Sobolewska and Ford, 2019)
To conclude, the concept of multiculturalism is revealed to have an inherent dichotomy. There are many actors that contribute to the essentially contested concept as one could blame political actors engaging in parochialism distorting the value of meaning. With the political sphere constantly evolving alongside humanity, political concepts such as multiculturalism naturally then, tend to embody new meanings. Despite the fact that multiculturalism has always existed such as in the Ottoman Empire, it is bound to take on different meanings by different people and cultures. The political sphere is intrinsically value-laden and so it is natural that there is a lack of conceptual clarity. Gallie (1956) however saw that essentially contested concepts have the benefit of raising the quality of disputes. Likewise, Chin (2017, p.22) recognized ‘the fundamental value of multiculturalism’s messiness’ is that it enables more debate over diversity and not less.
Stuck on your essay?
