Göktürk, Deniz. 2000. Migration und Kino - Subnationale Mitleidskultur oder transnationale Rollenspiele? S. 329-347 in Interkulturelle Literatur in Deutschland, hrsg. von Carmine Chiellino. Stuttgart: Metzler Verlag.
Hall, Stuart. 1994. Rassismus und kulturelle Identität. Ausgewählte Schriften 2. Hamburg: Argument.
Hall, Stuart. 2001. The spectacle of the “other.” S. 324-344 in Discourse, Theory and Practice. A Reader, hrsg. von Margaret. Wetherell, Stephanie. Taylor und Simoen J. Yates. London: Sage
Glaser, Barney und Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Jenkins, Richard. 2008. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. London: Sage.
Kelle, Udo und Susann Kluge. 2010. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Lamont, Michèle und Nissim Mizrachi. 2012. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things: Responses to stigmatization in comparative perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(3): 365-381.
Lamont, Michèle und Virag Molnar. 2002. The study of
In recent years, a lively debate has erupted over whether and how interculturalism differs from multiculturalism as a response to cultural diversity (for example, Meer, Modood, & Zapata-Barrero 2016 ; Barrett 2013 ; Meer & Modood 2012 ; Kymlicka 2012 ; Levey 2012 ; Taylor 2012 ; Wieviorka 2012 ; Bouchard 2011 ). An influential argument in this debate is that multiculturalism itself militates against intercultural dialogue (ICD) (for example, Zapata-Barrero 2015 ; Cantle 2012 ; Council of Europe 2008 ). In this article, I want to scrutinise this
, has served to highlight fundamental EU concerns with its identity and integration (European, national and local), sovereignty and security ( Adler-Nissen, 2014 ; Liddle, 2014 ; Zimmermann, 2016 ).
The argument in this article is that the EU commitment to ICD – an ICD that includes religion as an aspect, or dimension, of culture alongside ethnicity and language – paradoxically limits the EU and its participant states from responding adequately to issues that manifest themselves as discretely religious concerns. This, coupled with the poor and limited framing of
never disappeared—a familiar argument dating at least to Tocqueville’s account of the impact of individualism on notions of American identity. If issues related to full societal membership early on revolved around issues of class—property owners versus those without property—since race and gender divisions were taken for granted, things became more complicated over time with the expansion of the nation westward, justified by the idea of Manifest Destiny, and the place of the indigenous population remained a fraught issue. This is the topic addressed in the following
. Recognising this, Bryan Turner (2013) argues that previous forms of citizenship have converged towards a passive type, in which the state has withdrawn from commitment to full employment and welfare and where civil society has been replaced by the market. In this type, the citizen is a passive apolitical and isolated consumer. Critically engaging with Turner’s arguments, this article takes a step further, arguing that the current historical juncture can be understood as moving towards a post-democracy ( Crouch, 2004 ). This process has affected some countries more than
needs to be feared and why has been nuanced differently in response to various historical events and the representation of these events by different governments. Nonetheless, sinophobia has remained apparent. Historically, Australia’s desire to remain a British bastion in the Asia-Pacific region has fuelled a state of siege mentality whereby the country’s geographical location has formed the idea that it is vulnerable to being overrun by Chinese migrants who would dissipate this British heritage. This line of argument is commonly associated with sinophobia as it was
’. Socrates sets out to destroy the argument of his interlocutor and to discredit him as either a teacher, a learned person, or an authority on wise conduct. These dialogues typically end in a breakdown with Socrates’ opponent alleging that Socrates is constantly twisting his words for his own self-aggrandisement, so there is no point in carrying on. The other kind of dialogue, of which The Republic is the most famous example, is more like an interview and consists of a rational cooperation to discover the Truth.
While both these kinds of oral exchanges have lived on
groups within a society can also experience exclusion and alienation, as Margaret Somers discovered in her study of victims of Hurricane Katrina in the United States. In Genealogies of Citizenship , she provides a defence of citizenship as the necessary foundation of democracy and an essential ingredient of social solidarity, equality and trust. Her argument is that ‘democratic citizenship regimes (including human rights) can thrive only to the extent that egalitarian and solidaristic principles, practices, and institutions of civil society and the public commons are
weakened sense of belonging to the wider society. In other words, the challenge of how to accept and support cultural and religious diversity without necessarily erecting new forms of mutual exclusion and intercultural tensions remains.
The in-principle position pursued in this introduction follows the intellectual arguments made within theories of global citizenship (e.g. Davis 2006 ) and cosmopolitanism ( Appiah 2006 ), whereby the true binding glue for diverse societies resides not only within nationalistic normative citizenship articulations but rather within a