Parekh

Society needs to balance the need of cohesion and a sense of belonging with the right of minority groups to preserve their way of life.¹

Proceduralist view of integration: state as culturally neutral, minorities left free to choose up to which point they wish to assimilate the majority culture.²

Assimilationist model: need for a “common national culture” “the state has both a right and a duty to ensure that its cultural minorities assimilate or merge into the prevailing national culture.”³ cultural assimilation--> biological assimilation through intermarriage--> nationalist assimilation.⁴

Bifurcationist/liberal model of integration: focuses on public and private divide, unity in the public realm, diversity allowed in the private. Sharing of a “common political culture.”⁵

Pluralist model: need for a realisation of the multicultural nature of society, state has the role to promote the culture of ethnic minority groups.⁶

Millet model state has no independent status but is rather a “union of communities, a bare framework within which they should be free to pursue their traditional ways of life and engage in necessary social, political and economic interactions.”⁷ state should respect the individuality of the communities and work to preserve them.⁸

“The five models also entail different conceptions of citizenship. In the proceduralist model citizenship is purely formal in nature and consists of certain rights and obligations. In the assimilationist model it is grounded in the national culture and requires the citizen to share it as a necessary precondition of full membership of the political community. In the bifurcationist model the citizen is committed to sharing the political culture of the community. In the pluralist model citizenship has a plural cultural basis, and citizens bring their diverse cultures to the public realm and enjoy a culturally mediated membership of the political community. The millet model privileges communal membership and has no, or only a highly attenuated, notion of citizenship.”⁹

claims that the proceduralist model is logically incoherent, for any concept of a state must be based on certain (cultural) values, and thus it is impossible for the state to be culturally neutral.¹⁰

Assimilation (1) not clear what one is to assimilate into (2) rarely works in practice (3) impossible for liberal societies as it breaks the principle of equal respect for persons who are “culturally embedded and derive their sense of identity and meaning from their cultures.”¹¹

Bifurcationist model (1) the “common” public values tend to represent the values of a certain, dominant group. (2) Discourse of public unity tends to outweigh discourse of private diversity¹²

Defends pluralist/multicultural model (1) “cherishes unity and diversity and privileges neither.”¹³public realm institutionalises and celebrates diversity.¹⁴

Critique of the millet model (1) freezes and isolates communities (2) ignores that individuals may belong to diverse communities.¹⁵

on post WW2 immigration “the consciousness of colour was imposed on the immigrants by white society for they did not define themselves in terms of it.”¹⁶ “Two interrelated factors were judged to stand in the way of good race relations, namely the number of immigrants and white society's discrimination against them...Successive governments therefore decided upon the interrelated and mutually legitimising policies of restricting black and Asian immigration and combating discrimination.”¹⁷

Issue of integration emerges in 1960s, beginning of discourse of multiculturalism. Note however, use of term “ethnic minorities” rather than “ethnic groups” as was the case in USA and Canada.¹⁸ Resistance of language by conservative commentators.¹⁹

conservatives preferred assimilationist model, liberals bifurcationist model.²⁰ both shared the consensus that the public realm was to be shaped by the dominant, white, culture.²¹

Explores the impact of the Rushdie affair on the debate including (1) the shift of many integrationists to assimilation (2) the emergence of the pluralist perspective (3) realisation of the need for minorities to become actors in the debate (4) issue that Britain also had a cultural problem.²²

1B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 1.

2B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 1–2.

3B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 2.

4B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 2.

5B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 2–3.

6B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 3.

7B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 4.

8B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 4.

9B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 5,

10B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 5–7.

11B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 7–8.

12B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 8–9.

13B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 9.

14B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 10.

15B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 11–12.

16B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 13–14.

17B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 14.

18B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 14–15.

19B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 15.

20B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 15..

21B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 17.

22B Parekh, “Integrating Minorities” in T Blackstone, B Parekh and P Sanders, Race Relations in Britain: a developing agenda, (London: Routledge, 1999) 1–21, 18–20.