1  Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism(s): A Short Introduction

The concept of multiculturalism emerged from the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Ethnic minorities and women’s equality groups were dissatisfied because of the lack to progress to end inequality through civil rights legislation. Many immigrants and racioethnic groups living in multi-ethnic societies felt that their dreams had not been realised (Nkomo and Hoobler 2014). The advance and retreat of multiculturalism has been present in various countries, except Canada, where multiculturalism has been the most prominent worldwide. To start with the advance of multiculturalism, reference must be made to the increased migration starting in the 1960s, which led to the formation of multiculturalist policies in developing countries and the developed societies of North America, Western Europe and Australasia. A change of attitude occurred in the host countries with the new wave of migration, whereby the previous policies of assimilation that expected immigrants to adopt the majority culture became neither necessary nor desirable (Crowder 2013).

The term ‘multiculturalism’ was coined in Canada and became the nation’s official policy in 1971. It gained some popularity in the 1980s and 1990s in other migrant-receiving countries, such as the US, the UK and Australia. There are varied definitions of multiculturalism, yet, overall, multicultural ideologies tend to encourage and appreciate different cultural groups, including their experiences and contributions. Multiculturalism encourages these groups to maintain their culture and cultural identities, and emphasises the notion that no group is superior or privileged (Nkomo and Hoobler 2014). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2006, 17) stated that ‘the term multicultural describes the culturally diverse nature of human society. It not only refers to elements of ethnic or national nature, but also includes linguistic, religious and socio-economic diversity’. A distinction is generally made between two different meanings of multiculturalism: an empirical concept that refers to cultural and moral diversity, and a normative concept that celebrates cultural plurality (Jahanbegloo and Parekh 2011). A multicultural society is distinguished by cultural diversity, and multiculturalism is considered a normative doctrine because it represents a specific approach to that diversity (Jahanbegloo and Parekh 2011). In other words, multiculturalism has three core dimensions:

However, multiculturalism does not have a straightforward definition, and depicts multiple meanings. Interestingly, to complicate matters further, America’s multiculturalism is not the same as that of Europe—the histories, origins, intentions and present practices are not the same, and the future will not be the same either. Therefore, the meaning of multiculturalism, both in theory and practice, can vary from one place to another, especially when comparing attitudes towards multiculturalism in countries in Western and Eastern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australasia; Africa and Asia. For example, in Canada and Australasia, multiculturalism does not encompass indigenous peoples, and indigenous groups refuse to have their claims covered by multiculturalism because of the question of legitimacy of the state concerning indigenous peoples. In contrast, in other parts of the world, such as Latin America, indigenous peoples use the term ‘multiculturalism’ to refer to their claims, as opposed to immigrant groups (Ivison 2010).

European approaches to multiculturalism operate on different principles and subsequently produce different outcomes. The European approach tends to be more accommodating of differences. Europe’s politically involved Christian communities—in accordance with the dominant European multiculturalism—have made more criticisms of Islam than their American counterparts to educate ‘acceptable’ Muslim partners who might enhance social stability, rather than serve as allies against secularism. Although there are striking differences in how multiculturalism is legally defined and politically governed in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, they share in common the fact that they all have large foreign-born populations, as shown in Table 1.1. Additionally, the share of the foreign-born population in the total population is increasing in these four countries.

As a result of the increasing levels of human mobility across borders, the world is no longer perceived as a system of separate communities, but viewed as a mixture of many interacting relations. Therefore, ‘the other’ could be any person, regardless of the country in which the individual lives (Jawor 2014). Sociology has also strengthened the feeling that the social environment belongs to ‘our’ people, and that we feel safe ‘among us’, while anything ‘strange’ or ‘other’ is viewed as a threat. From this point of view, xenophobia and homophobia can be considered natural. It is human nature to fear anything unknown and unfamiliar. According to Jawor (2014, 135), the cure is not to exclude ‘the other’ or to include the other into ‘mainstream’ culture, but to exclude the other by eliminating the division between majority and minorities, thereby making the other one of us: ‘We are all different and we are all equal, just like the colours of the rainbow palette: everyone is different, but they are all parallel’.

Table 1.1 Foreign-born Population as a Proportion of the Total Population in G8 Countries and Australia

Country of residence	Census year	Foreign-born population (%)
Japan	2000	1.0
Italy	2009	8.0
Russian Federation	2002	8.2
France	2008	8.6
UK	2010	11.5
US	2010	12.9
Germany	2010	13.0
Canada	2011	20.6
Australia	2010	26.8

Source: Statistics Canada (2011).

After the US attacks on 11 September 2001, there has been a shift in global and economic structures, which led to a focus on immigration, not only in the US, but also in Western Europe. This focus seems to have replaced the questions of identity that ruled the debate of multiculturalism in the 1970s and 1980s, where identities were distinguished by phrases such as ‘Asian American’, ‘Native American’, ‘Black German’, ‘German Turkish’ and ‘British Asian’ (Lauter 2009). However, multiculturalism focuses on the issue of legitimisation—whether one is and is perceived as a legal, legitimate, full citizen (Lauter 2009). Having accepted so many immigrants, liberal states must tolerate the multicultural transformation of their societies, simply because they are dubious about imposing cultural ways upon their members. Further, multiculturalism is not a description of culturally diverse societies, but a claim to recognise cultural difference; thus, it becomes the responsibility of the state (Joppke 1996).

Three ‘logics’ of multiculturalism have been identified to represent three models to help understand the essence of multiculturalism. The first logic is protective or communitarian multiculturalism, which aims to publicly recognise ethno-cultural groups and preserve the cultural integrity and authenticity related to their life. The second logic is liberal multiculturalism, which can be regarded the most prominent political theory, where multiculturalism is protected because of its promotion of liberal values, including equality, autonomy, toleration and equal respect. Protecting the human rights of minority groups is an essential element of democracy, as shown through national legislation and international practice (Ivison 2010). A liberal state can be accused of illiberalism if multiculturalism is not adopted (Guiora 2014). The third logic is imperial, which is neither protective nor liberal, and questions how ‘minorities’ and ‘majorities’ are defined (Ivison 2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis of multiculturalism in Figure 1.1 provided by Ng and Bloemraad (2015) highlights the current discussions and challenges of multiculturalism.

The debate over immigration in the US and the West has shifted to where the immigrants come from, and the focus on domestic multiculturalism has shifted to a globalised ‘migrant’ culture. Western secular democracies were built on compromises that enabled the various religions introduced by immigrants to flourish. However, the form of religious expression known as ‘deism’ constituted the core belief system of many people in the eighteenth century. In various parts of the developing world, especially in the Middle East, people have been attracted to extreme religious fundamentalism as a choice against Western domination. It seems that the attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, in Madrid in 2004, and in London in 2005 created a conflict between radical Islam and democracy. One of the leading advocates of European multiculturalism, British sociologist, Modood (2007, 14), expressed anxiety about multiculturalism after 11 September 2001, and questioned the appropriateness of multiculturalism in the twenty-first century by arguing that ‘it is the form of integration that best meets the normative implications of equal citizenship’.

In the late 1990s in Australia, politician Pauline Hanson was very popular in leading her One Nation Party’s crusade against Asian immigration and multiculturalism in Australia. In October 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that ‘Multiculturalism is dead’ (The Guardian 2010), when Germany had never adopted a multicultural policy in the first place, or endorsed an official public policy recognising cultural differences. Moreover, some German politicians called for a halt to immigration from Turkey and the Middle East (Soutphommasane 2012). Especially after 11 September 2001, multiculturalism has been criticised by many, with the numbers of critics increasing over the years in response to some sensational cases raised by the media. Examples include the threats made against the novelist Salman Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses, the murder of the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, the ‘Danish cartoons’ controversy as well as the London bombings of 7 July 2005 (Crowder 2013). Critics claim that these cases manifest a failure of multiculturalism, when it is actually doubtful whether these instances had anything to do with multiculturalism, or were endorsed or encouraged by multiculturalist policies. Critics have also claimed that multiculturalist policies have been created by policy elites, not by popular demand. Thus, ordinary people view such programs as being imposed on them by elitists who have made their lives more difficult (Crowder 2013).

Undoubtedly, the events of 11 September 2001 and the al-Qaeda-inspired attacks in Madrid and London have caused anxiety and concerns about immigration, social cohesion and multicultural permissiveness resulting in so-called home-grown terrorism (Soutphommasane 2012). Majority and minority populations are becoming increasingly multicultural because of immigration. However, multiculturalism has become one of the major fatalities— alongside procedural justice and civil liberties—in Western democracies in the era following the 11 September 2001 attacks (Wegner 2009). The so-called corporate multiculturalism continues until the present time as a form of an administrative instrument (Wegner 2009). Yet, after the incident on 11 September, President George W. Bush called for increased tolerance of Muslims and their culture.

It is argued that 11 September 2001 was an event that led to a new period in diversity management, now known as the ‘post-9/11’ era. Multiculturalism gained a new factor referred to as ‘anti- and/or post-multiculturalism discourse’, which was first used in the UK with the intention to enhance cohesion, assimilation and a common identity (Garcea, Kirova and Wong 2008). The predominant claim in this emerging discourse is that the emphasis on cultural diversity and individual identities by those supporting multiculturalism undermines the cohesion and common identity that is necessary in any society. For example, in Australia, multiculturalism has been blamed of being ‘used to hollow out what it means to be and to become an Australian citizen, depriving citizenship of its cultural base in a distinctive Australian nationality’ (Crowder 2013, 3). The former British Prime Minister David Cameron inferred that the weakening of collective British identity and the rise of Islamist extremism in the UK are attributed to multiculturalism (Crowder 2013). Guiora (2014) argued that Western Europe’s governments have allowed immigrants to form self-segregating parallel societies, instead of allowing them integrate to become part of their new societies. The concern is based on the conviction that the nation-state is dedicating resources, time and protection to those who are assumed to be ‘attacking’ their country’s immigrants. This failed state is grounds for intervention, and a failure to protect people in the immigrant community constitutes a failure of the government to perform its required obligation (Guiora 2014). With respect to multiculturalism, it is stated that:

In addition, performance can be affected and give wider results if minority cultures feel threatened in the environments. While multiculturalism is considered an asset, diversity in itself does not have benefits (Appelbaum et al. 2015). To benefit from multiculturalism, the best way to handle diversity is to recognise the shortcomings of a group so they can be managed (Appelbaum et al. 2015). Therefore, the onus is on management to identify the cultural differences and backgrounds of a group, and to value and support all employees. The performance of a diverse group depends on good management. However, for a diverse group to be managed well, existing stereotypes must be removed and channels of communication enhanced. Appelbaum et al. (2015) claimed that problems occur when different cultures intersect and members of groups present themselves as superior, while members of other groups feel inferior. Thus, managing diversity requires people to be adaptable and have the communication skills to respond to situations that value diversity, with positive expectations.

Multiculturalism in the US

It is necessary to distinguish between the issues of ‘melting pot’ versus ‘mosaic’. America is described as a ‘melting pot’ of races and ethnic groups that are dissolving and reforming. The Naturalisation Act of 1790 was the first law in the US stipulating the conditions for obtaining citizenship, in which aliens had to be of good character, have lived in the country for two years, take an oath of support for the constitution, and be a free white person. Indentured servants, slaves, free black people and American Indians were excluded. Women were able to obtain citizenship through their white fathers, but without the right to own property or vote (Carter 2016). Americans believed that the whole continent belonged to them, even though they had taken control of American Indians’ land—and then denied American Indians citizenship. American Indians finally managed to gain US citizenship in the twentieth century through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, yet still without the right to vote (Carter 2016). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to all people born in the US, while the Citizenship Clause recognised that an individual had both state and national citizenship, but no state was able to interfere with the privileges of the latter (Carter 2016).

Most immigrants to the US had expected to become Americans—they were running away from difficult pasts to assimilate into a better future. Nevertheless, while the ‘melting pot’ does not work socially, it has succeeded in education. However, it took decades of political, judicial and legislative pressure to include a few minorities in the ‘melting pot’. It seems that economic hardship may be the contributing factor to the rising ethnic tensions in terms of earnings among working-class groups, such as white, black and Latino, and multiculturalism. In addition, there was a gap between the rising income of the ‘haves’ and the declining income of the ‘have-nots’ (Price 1992).

Based on the history of demographic change in the US, newcomers have always changed the social fabric of the country. The new influx of immigrants in the 1830s—especially German and Irish peasants—changed the face of the US working-class population. Between the 1880s and mid-1920s, more than 25 million ‘new immigrants’ arrived in the US. During World War I, this wave started to diminish, and internal migration led to the arrival of millions of African American and Mexican workers and their families to join the industrial communities, thereby forming the modern American working-class population. The interaction of diverse ethnic groups and integration of women created the nation’s powerful industrial union movement in this era (Barrett 2016). As shown in Table 1.2, the level of ethnic diversity in the US has been steadily increasing since the 1960s. While the share of the white population was 84% in 1960, it had decreased to 62% in 2015. In the same period, all other ethnicities increased their share in the US population.

In addition to Hispanics, the share of Asian individuals in the US population has substantially increased since the 1960s. According to Hsu (2016), the Immigration Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act) is responsible for the growth in the Asian population and diversity from 1 million in 1960 to about 16 million in 2009 because of the liberalisation of the immigration law, which once only allowed white Anglo-Saxon Protestant individuals. Under the ‘Asiatic Exclusion’ policy and the national origins quota systems, few Asian immigrants were able to enter the US, and those few were men seeking employment or business opportunities, leaving behind their families and communities. However, nationalist China’s role as America’s main friend in Asia led to the repeal of the Chinese exclusion laws in 1943, after which the Chinese became the first Asians to obtain entry quotas and naturalisation rights, followed by Filipinos and Indians in 1946 (Hsu 2016).

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, religion-based discrimination also existed in America. Catholic and Jewish people faced ferocious prejudice and discrimination during that period. Racism was so bad that Catholic Irish were portrayed by the mainstream as apes, and depicted as subhuman and beastlike. In the 1920s, immigration restrictions were successfully driven by the resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan movement, which was anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish and anti-black people. During the 1950s and 1960s, the hostility against the Catholics and Jews faded, as they were socially ascendant and appeared as peers of Protestants. By the 1970s, Catholic groups experienced improved social standing on a large scale, and intermarried with people from the mainstream group, while Jewish people were accepted into elite colleges, and anti-Semitism disappeared with the revelation of the Holocaust (Alba 2016).

After World War II, there were cultural and social moves towards a more multicultural and multiracial American society. While this dramatic transformation was occurring, a generation of American-born Asians played an active role in the national upheaval of the civil rights movement. America’s anti-communist projects in the Southeast Asian peninsula caused a new influx of migration of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian people, whose homes were destroyed. America’s bitter loss in Vietnam must have caused some issues of ‘guilt, obligation, ambivalence, hostility, and amnesia’ (Hsu 2016, p. 59) behind the influx of 1 million refugees in many waves, caused by American intervention. Countries such as Australia, Canada and the US (Table 1.3) received their share of this outflow and provided permanent homes for some of these refugees. There are now many Asians living in the US as undocumented immigrants, who initially overstayed their tourist, student or temporary work visas, and the Philippines is considered one of 10 countries sending illegal immigrants to the US. Since the 1980s, the largest Asian communities in the US comprise ethnic Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese people (Hsu 2016).

Table 1.3 Sources of Immigration to the US by Era

		Total	Share (%)
Modern era (1965–2015)		58,525,000	100
Regions	Latin America	29,750,000	51
	South/East Asia	14,700,00	25
	Europe	6,900,000	12
	Africa/Middle East	4,550,000	8
	Canada	1,150,000	2
	All other	1,450,000	2
Southern/Eastern Europe wave (1890–1919)		18,244,000	100
Regions	South/East Europe	11,377,000	62
	North/West Europe	4,757,000	26
	Canada	835,000	5
	Latin America	551,000	3
	Africa/Middle East	332,000	2
	South/East Asia	315,000	2
	Other/not specified	77,000	< 0.5
Northern Europe wave (1840–1889)		14,314,000	100
Regions	North/West Europe	11,700,000	82
	South/East Europe	1,058,000	7
	Canada	1,034,000	7
	South/East Asia	293,000	2
	Latin America	101,000	1
	Africa/Middle East	5,000	< 0.5
	Other/not specified	124,000	1

Source: Data compiled from Pew Research Center (2015, 11).

Economics is still a driving force behind immigrants fleeing war and religious persecution in their native lands—a desire to improve their lives, even by migrating illegally. Religion is a major feature in American life, as witnessed by the arrival of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, which complicated the issue of the usual acceptance of the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish religious identification of Americans. Additionally, the terrorism threat has led to increased non-acceptance of Muslims, as evidenced by the opposition to building mosques and the attacks on Sikhs because they look like Muslims (Bayor 2016). Waves of immigrants have flooded the US, attracted by economic opportunity and personal freedom, and are transforming the country into an ethnically heterogeneous and increasingly changing population. It is not wrong to think that immigration will change people—because it does—but it is wrong to fear that change. The American identity is constantly changing and being reinvented through the cross-cultural ‘negotiations’ that differentiate a multicultural society (Hackney 1997). Bayor (2016) argued that non-white immigrant groups have faced a denial of citizenship status and discrimination beyond what they can endure. Even today, American-born US citizens of Asian and Mexican descent are considered by some white people as foreigners in their native land (Bayor 2016).

Chester Finn, who served in the US Department of Education under President Ronald Reagan, advocated teaching patriotism in American schools. He expressed his view as follows:

The various stakeholders in the US seem to agree that schools should teach ‘respect for diversity’, yet this expression may be misinterpreted. Respecting diversity requires minorities’ viewpoints to be legitimised and incorporated into the official national narrative. Students should be informed that truth is subjective and that they should consider other people’s viewpoints. Respecting diversity signifies that America consists of many different ethnic groups. However, avoiding conflict, discrimination and inequality is important for fear of causing antagonism. Thus, teaching about a great part of minorities’ experiences is not taught in American history. However, in general, books are committed to showing a multicultural image of America and its history by including photographs of contemporary Americans who are members of ethnic groups that are rarely mentioned in historical events. Despite multiculturalists’ proposals, most books do not portray Muslim Americans, who migrated to America in four waves—the first of which was between 1875 and 1912 from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Israel (Handzlik 2014). The only exception seems to be the 2003 book titled Our Nation published by McGraw-Hill that includes such photographs and presents an exercise teaching about Muslims in the US (Hutchins-Viroux 2009).

The story of immigrants to the US reflects a process of adaptation, acculturation and assimilation. The driving force of immigration to the US is in search of freedom and opportunities, yet both domestic and foreign developments remain a challenge to immigration and ethnicity. The public policy changed from Americanisation, assimilation and Anglo-conformity of the so-called ‘melting pot’ into a general tolerance of ethnic difference within the framework of American citizenship, loyalty and patriotism, which accepted the proposition that the hyphens between two words could show a link or a division. (Bukowczyk 2016). While the term ‘multiculturalism’ was used as a synonym for ‘diversity’, it acknowledged the existence of oppressed racial minorities who happened to be different from white ethnic groups and were subjected to racial inequality (Bukowczyk 2016, 492). Americans must come to terms with ‘difference’ to cooperate across racial and ethnic lines. The areas of commonality between members of diverse groups and American citizens should be identified to help remove the threat that human beings fear when they encounter ‘the other’. Common values and commitments would give people joy and stimulation from the cultural enrichment that derives from diversity (Hackney 1997).

Multiculturalists have had more success about discrimination, which can now be discussed openly against black, Chinese and Mexican people. Notably, the government policies and civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s were successful in eliminating discrimination (Hutchins-Viroux 2009). The ongoing fight against discrimination in an attempt to generate social justice is the core of progressive multiculturalism (Hutchins- Viroux 2009). Due to successive waves of migration over 200 years, each immigrant group brought its own culture, language and institutions, and competed with each other over the best model to fit their experiences and needs. This led to the formation of working-class cultures based on ethno-cultural identity, with unions and fraternal and educational groups, as well as radical political ethnic lines. This ‘making’ occurred in every community of migrants in the US, leading to working-class cultures and movements that were threatened by division in terms of race, religion, ethnicity, gender and skill. The challenge of working-class organisers was to bridge these divisions to establish a strong movement of diverse people (Barrett 2016).

Multiculturalism in Canada

Pierre Elliott Trudeau served as Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 to 1984, and gave Canada the vision of multiculturalism. Historian Michael Bliss (1994, 246) labelled Trudeau ‘the father of bilingual, multicultural Canada’. In the Canadian context, multiculturalism involves recognition of others of similar or different cultural experiences, imbued with tolerance and acceptance (Wood and Gilbert 2005). Diversity in Canada was legally acknowledged in 1971. In 1988, by virtue of Bill C-93, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed, and diversity consequently became a reference to a multi-ethnic population (Xu 2013). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirmed the value of cultural pluralism, with the Canadians’ intention to honour the richness of cultural diversity. A closer examination of the legislative process with regard to multiculturalism reveals that the policy of multiculturalism declared in 1971 focused on two issues: (i) maintaining cultural communities (the cultural component) and (ii) enhancing intercultural contact and minimising any obstacles that prevent such participation (the intercultural component) (Berry 2013). The multiculturalism policy implemented by the Government of Canada in 1971 stated that:

Management of diversity was first used in public policy in the Canadian Policy of Multiculturalism with a Bilingual Framework. The Multiculturalism Act 1988 declared that the policy of the Government of Canada was to:

The Act also recognised that ‘multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future’ (Berry 2013, 664). At the same time, the Act sought:

Moreover, it sought to ‘ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity’ (Berry 2013, 664).

The two features of multiculturalism—diversity and equity—have remained pivotal to Canadian policy since the day of its inception. Interestingly, the recent inclusion of everyone into a Canadian civic society has become a focal point with an emphasis on a common citizenship for all. This shift is a considered a move from ethnicity multiculturalism focusing on cultural diversity towards equity multiculturalism focusing on equitable participation. The increasing diversity of the population in Canada is second only to Australia, and is concentrated in Canada’s largest cities. The majority of people who arrived between 1991 and 2001 settled in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, where there is an increasing concentration of employment, while many areas outside the largest cities are experiencing a population decline. With the exception of the indigenous peoples, the non-white character of immigration is another significant change in Canada, giving rise to what is called officially ‘visible minorities’. While recent immigration occupies Canada’s largest cities, Ottawa is diversifying rapidly and is now considered third after Toronto and Vancouver in terms of the influx of recent immigration. There have been attempts by both federal and provincial governments to regionalise immigration to encourage newcomers to settle in smaller communities; however, the programs have been unsuccessful (Andrew 2007).

Canada was a culturally diverse domain even before the arrival of European settlers. It has 50 distinct Aboriginal cultures, with more than a dozen different languages in the Aboriginal population. As for immigration, Canada has the fifth-largest foreign-born population in the world (International Organization for Migration 2010). In Canada, the Aboriginal or cultural minority heritage constitutes just under one-quarter of the population (Marshall et al. 2013). Cultural acceptance seems to be a necessary component in Canada, embedded in the ‘four R’s’ needed in the Aboriginal context: respect, reciprocity, relevance and responsibility (Marshall et al. 2013). Demonstrating respect is viewed by some scholars as an important issue, and people who experienced racism and discrimination indicated that acceptance remains a challenge in the dominant Canadian culture (Abdullah 2013). Tables 1.4 and 1.5 indicate the ethnic diversity in the Canadian population (Table 1.4) and the immigrant population by place of birth and period of immigration in Canada (Table 1.5).

Further, the concept of ‘diversity’ not only refers to demographic cultural differences, but to:

In its early days, the Canadian policy of multiculturalism insisted on providing services in languages other than English and French; ‘celebrating’ diversity; and challenging the dominant norms, such as dress code, habits, accents and prejudice. Eventually, the policy of multiculturalism in Canada has come to recognise other cultures, with racial/ethnic minorities entitled to retain their cultural heritage, thereby resulting in organisations hiring visible minorities who speak the language of a particular community (Hiranandani 2012). This particular change in the context of multiculturalism in Canada can be seen as a natural outcome of the increasing shares of a foreign-born and mixed-race population. However, Hiranandani (2012) argued that visible minorities remain subject to discrimination in the workplace. Tables 1.6 and 1.7 provide core statistics on the visible minority population in Canada.

Table 1.4 Population by Ethnic Origin in Canada, 2016

	Country total	Percentage
Ethnic origin	34,460,065	100
North American Aboriginal origins	2,130,520	6
Other North American origins	11,628,535	34
European origins	19,683,320	57
British Isles origins	11,211,850	33
French origins	4,680,820	14
Western European origins (except French origins)	4,600,855	13
Northern European origins (except British Isles origins)	1,201,320	3
Eastern European origins	3,431,245	10
Southern European origins	3,012,375	9
Caribbean origins	749,155	2
Latin, Central and South American origins	674,640	2
African origins	1,067,930	3
North African origins	355,045	1
Asian origins	6,095,235	18
West Central Asian and Middle Eastern origins	1,011,145	3
South Asian origins	1,963,330	6
East and Southeast Asian origins	3,163,360	9
Other Asian origins	22,740	0
Oceania origins	85,470	0

Source: Statistics Canada (2016a).

Table 1.6 Visible Minority Population in Canada, 2011

	Total population number	Visible minority population number	%	Top three visible minority groups
Canada	32,852,325	6,264,755	19.1	South Asian, Chinese, black
Toronto	5,521,235	2,596,420	47.0	South Asian, Chinese, black
Montreal	3,752,475	762,325	20.3	Black, Arab, Latin American
Vancouver	2,280,695	1,030,335	45.2	Chinese, South Asian, Filipino
Ottawa—Gatineau	1,215,735	234,015	19.2	Black, Arab, Chinese
Calgary	1,199,125	337,420	28.1	South Asian, Chinese, Filipino
Edmonton	1,139,585	254,990	22.4	South Asian, Chinese, Filipino
Winnipeg	714,635	140,770	19.7	Filipino, South Asian, black
Hamilton	708,175	101,600	14.3	South Asian, black, Chinese

Source: Statistics Canada (2011).

Multiculturalism will remain an important issue in Canada because of declining birth rates and an ageing population, which leads to greater demand for skilled employees. Educating Canadians about the benefits of immigration to Canada will create more support for diversity and foster acceptance of newcomers. Settling immigrants in highly populated areas with rapid growth rates might generate negative attitudes towards newcomers, whereas directing immigrants to areas where their skills are in demand could promote settlement in wider Canadian communities (Mulder and Krahn 2005). Against this background, there has been a heated debate regarding whether multiculturalism in Canada has failed or succeeded. For those who argue that Canadian multiculturalism has failed, the failure is a worldwide phenomenon affected by rising global anxieties and backlash. Thus, there has been a shift from multiculturalism to social cohesion and integration in Western democracies.

Multiculturalism has been tried and has failed in Europe with serious social consequences, which has revealed to Canada—as a multicultural country—the inherent flaws of multiculturalism. Although multiculturalism has failed in Europe, it remains strong in Canada and major political parties have no aspiration of abolishing or retreating from multiculturalism. Indeed, the Canadian model of immigrant integration in Canada has succeeded, and it only requires minor changes. However, there has been a shift in relation to immigrant integration in Western democracies from multiculturalism and heading towards social cohesion and integration. While the failure of multiculturalism in Europe has led to more segregation, stereotyping and prejudice, Canada has not followed this European trajectory, although Canadians have not been immune to the influence of the European problems (Banting and Kymlicka 2010). Canada’s immigrants have more skills than immigrants in other countries; thus, they bring human capital that enables them to move into the labour market. However, the presence of a multiculturalism policy has not contributed to the success of immigrants’ integration in Canada—rather, it may impede it (Goodhart 2008). Palmer (2002) argued that Canada—like the US, Australia and New Zealand—had an assimilationist approach to immigration. Immigrants were expected to assimilate and eventually melt into the existing mainstream culture. Any group that was incapable of assimilating was not allowed to immigrate to Canada or become citizens (Banting and Kymlicka 2010). Findings from survey research indicated that Canadians, while favourable to immigration, are of the opinion that immigrants should change and assimilate into Canadian society, not the other way around (Andrew 2007). However, ethno-cultural diversity has changed the lives of Canadians, especially those living in the largest cities. Thus, integration of ‘new Canadians’ has not been one-sided—as Canadian society has also wanted Canada and individuals to undergo more change (Andrew 2007).

Those who argue that Canadian multiculturalism has been a success story use the example of the refugee policy of the Canadian Government headed by Justin Trudeau. They claim that, unlike the US and most European Union (EU) countries, Canada supported multiculturalism by presenting the most ethnically diverse government in Canada, and subsequently accepted 25,000 government-sponsored refugees from Iraq and Syria. This move was supported by the public, and, in March 2016, the government approved the applications of 10,000 privately sponsored Syrian refugees to be completed by the end of 2016 or early 2017 (Mudde 2016). In an address, titled ‘Diversity is Canada’s Strength’, given at Canada House in November 2015 in England, Justin Trudeau (2015), Prime Minister of Canada, spoke of Canada’s diversity:

Ryan (2010) argued that this action taken by the new Trudeau government confirms the adoption of multiculturalism, and that the lack of far-right politics in Canada is a result of its unique multiculturalism policy. While there has been backlash against multiculturalism and the intake of refugees in most Western democracies, Canada remains the only Western democratic country that still upholds multiculturalism. Canada demonstrates that a large intake of immigrants does not necessarily cause a negative response among the denizens of the country. Western democracies are under no obligation to replicate the policy of Canada’s multiculturalism, but can learn from it. Canada demonstrates that a pro-multiculturalism policy can succeed in a multicultural country, and any adversary to immigration and multiculturalism can be surmounted on the condition that the political hierarchy is prepared to proactively support and explain their policies.

Multiculturalism in the UK

Historically, significant migration to Britain occurred in the post-World War II period. Approximately 800,000 people from New Commonwealth countries, most of whom were non-white, entered Britain between 1948 and 1962. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, these migrants entered Britain as British subjects, not foreign immigrants. Under this Act, Commonwealth subjects were entitled to enter Britain as citizens of the UK and colonies (Kim 2011). This Act presumed that any person who was a British subject, irrespective of race or colour, was eligible to enter and settle in Britain. As Kim (2011) stated, this Act seems to have been the formal instrument that validated the transformation of the UK into a multiracial society. Immigration from the New Commonwealth did not constitute a problem, but rather proof of the diversity of the empire, and recognition of the model of Civis Britannicus Sum (actually he was a British Subject). The term denotes an ancient concept of limited democracy from the Greek city states and the Roman Republic. It was used by republicans in the eighteenth century, and acquired by Palmerston for the British Monarchy. The equality extended to immigrants in the UK without recognising the difference was challenged, especially following the 1958 Nottingham race riots. These race riots were largely perpetrated by white residents against West Indians. In 1958, the city of Nottingham had an ethnic community totalling approximately 4,000, which comprised 1.2% of the population. Approximately 4,500 people were involved in the race riots (Kim 2011). The riots were partly motivated by deteriorating working conditions and unemployment in Nottingham and areas of west London. Thus, the strained race relations were exposed, which prompted policy makers in the 1940s to change their position. For example, this led to the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962 (Kim 2011).

As seen in Table 1.8, the population statistics between 1991 and 2011, the diversity in the UK population has increased significantly. While the change in white population was 1.6% and 1% in the periods of 1991–2011 and 2001–2011, respectively, the change in all other than white population was 137% and 70.5% in the same respective periods. Table 1.9 further illustrates the increase in ethnic diversity in the UK by showing the changes the ethnicity of non-UK-born population.

Previous studies indicate that, in the post-imperial period after World War II, Britain changed from a ‘civic’ to an ‘ethnic’ nation, where membership was defined by birth and ancestry. Tom Nairn (quoted in Joppke 1996, 477) even observed that ‘in the obscene form of racism, English nationalism has been re-born’. In the post-imperial period, 800,000 people born overseas became British subjects with the right to settle in the UK. This led to a shift from the principle of ‘allegiance to the crown’ to the national principle of territorial of citizenship, and unfortunately, in the British coloured and a white nation, it was difficult to accomplish without the racial division of the ins and the outs in society. A conservative minister at Westminster stated the Commonwealth ideal that was commonly accepted among the British elite:

Table 1.9 Ethnicity of the Non-UK-born Population by Period of Arrival, England and Wales, 2011

Ethnic group	Before 1981	1981–2000	2001–2006	2007–2011
White	%	%	%	%
British	52	27	11	9
Irish	63	22	7	9
Roma or Irish traveller	12	24	24	40
Other white	10	19	34	37
Mixed/multiple ethnic group
White and black Caribbean	36	24	20	20
White and black African	7	32	36	25
White and Asian	22	25	25	27
Other mixed	17	28	28	27
Asian/Asian British
Indian	38	20	21	21
Pakistani	28	32	22	18
Bangladeshi	19	47	19	16
Chinese	18	23	21	38
Other Asian	12	27	32	29
Black/African/Caribbean/black British
African	5	35	39	21
Caribbean	61	20	13	6
Other black	15	30	36	19
Other ethnic group
Arab	8	32	24	37
Any other ethnic group	16	32	29	23
All	24	25	26	24

Source: Office for National Statistics (2011).

However, the 1958 riots were enough to persuade the elites in the UK to impose restrictions on New Commonwealth immigration reinstated what was described by Gary Freeman (quoted in Joppke 1996, 478) as ‘fundamental congruence between public attitudes and public policy’. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 curtailed entry to work permit holders and close family members of residents and permit holders. In 1968, British Asians facing expulsion from Kenya were refused entry to the UK, which was a violation of an earlier promise of protection. The Immigration Act 1971 introduced the ‘patrial’ clause, which associated right of residency with the existence of at least one grandparent in the UK, which was a clear way of saying that ‘Britain preferred white immigrants’, as stated in The Economist in 1982 (Joppke 1996, 478). Finally, the British Nationality Act 1981 amended nationality law in the immigration regime already in operation, thereby forming a three-tier system of British dependent territory and overseas citizenship, and giving the right of entry and residence to ‘British citizens’ only (Joppke 1996). The idea of ‘assimilating’ immigrants was rejected by the UK before any other immigrant-receiving country in the West, including the US. The UK never attempted to ‘assimilate’ its colonial subjects (Joppke 1996).

Following the flux into the UK of British subjects from its colonies, defining race or colour became a challenge for UK policy makers, especially when designing census studies. For example, the memorandum submitted by the Home Office to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration on 23 April 1969 confirmed:

Multiraciality remained a problem for the UK census designers throughout the 1980s. During the proposed census question between 1985 and 1989, the Office of Population, Census and Surveys did not attempt to classify mixed-race people, since the methods used in 1970 were unsuccessful. However, in the final version of the ethnic question of the 1991 census, people were asked to choose the group to which they belonged, or to tick the ‘any other ethnic group’ category. Since 2001, the UK has officially become a multi-ethnic, multicultural society, as government policy acknowledges religion as a means to recognise and work with minorities. Thus, the structure combining difference and diversity in the UK shifted in the 1950s and 1960s from ‘race’ to incorporate ‘ethnicity’, to ‘culture’, and then to ‘faith’ (Grillo 2010). Since the 1960s, there has been controversy about hijabs and turbans in the UK, which tend to have positive responses, yet when hijabs are extended to include niqabs and burqas, this may have negative effects. In addition, freedom of speech is well received; however, when speech relates to inciting racial or religious hatred, it is not favourable in society, thereby leaving discussions with no apparent solution (Grillo 2010).

Opposition seems to be interpreted as xenophobia, while, in others, it is a clash with principles of democracy and secular values. The 1997 British Labour Government tried to introduce a model known as ‘cosmopolitan citizenship’ to replace ‘loyalty’ and commitment to communities, with an emphasis on ‘dialogue between groups and across boundaries’. Having inflexible multiculturalism would not align with such ideals at a time of tension, especially post-11 September (Grillo 2010). On 20 April 1968, Enoch Powell, a British Conservative Party politician, addressed the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre. He warned in his speech of a cultural backlash and its impact on society if unrestricted immigration continued in the UK. He stated that it was unfeasible for people from other cultures ever to become British or English, even if they were born and raised in the UK. Additionally, between 1960 and 2000, policies initiated by two ministers (from the Home Office and Education) attempted to monitor immigration, acting on the belief that most immigrants intended to settle in the UK. The then Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett (quoted in Grillo 2010, 53), declared in 2002 that:

In 2001, northern cities in the UK experienced some disturbances that erupted in Bradford as British Asians and white extremists clashed with police. This event raised questions about the alienation of minorities, particularly young Muslims, following the attack in the US on 11 September. In relation to the shift from ‘race’ to ‘faith’, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (quoted in Grillo 2010, 57) stated in 2001 that:

The reoccurring social tensions evidenced by the 1958 Nottingham and 1981 Brixton riots and the disturbances following the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 terrorist attacks have resulted in heated tension regarding the success or failure of multiculturalism in the UK. In his reflection on the 11 September attacks, Blair (quoted in Guiora 2014, 42) declared: ‘[w]e celebrate the diversity in our country, we get strength from the culture and races that go to make up Britain today’. Blair’s statement was well received by the British public, whereby:

However, when former British Prime Minister David Cameron (quoted in Howarth and Andreouli 2016, 2) addressed the 2011 Munich Security Conference, he declared that multiculturalism has not succeeded in the UK (Modood and Meer 2012):

In the UK, it seems that, while multiculturalist policies remained unchanged, they are politically in disarray. There are various reasons for the anti- multicultural turn, including claims that multiculturalism has paved the way for fragmentation and divisions. Multiculturalism has made ‘native’ populations hesitant in their moral stance on socio-economic disparities to the extent that some even blame it for international terrorism (Modood and Meer 2012).

The London bombings on 7 July 2005 demonstrated the problems that have occurred because of the lack of a civic British identity. Unlike the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, the London bombings were undertaken by British citizens whose loyalties lay with their ethnic and religious identities, rather than with the British state. Thus, the absence of civic British identity is considered a cause of divisions in the UK that can lead to friction and conflict (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008). Phillips (quoted in Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008, p. 5) added that multiculturalism should be scrapped because it may have come from a ‘desire to recognize that diversity is a good thing and to appreciate the many qualities newcomers brought to Britain’, yet has led to alienation, isolation and distance between communities (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008, 5). In support of this argument, the conservative think-tank Civitas claimed that ‘failure to establish unity in Britain has been largely due to the implementation of multiculturalism’ (Asari, Halikiopoulou and Mock 2008, 5).

Those who claim that multiculturalism has been working effectively in the UK argue that multiculturalism has successfully replaced assimilation and integration. Taylor-Gooby and Waite (2014) stated that assimilation encourages minorities to adopt mainstream values and to integrate with little focus on cultural differences, and endeavours to remove the problems of social cohesion resulting from disadvantage and discrimination. Multiculturalism tends to respect cultural differences. According to Taylor-Gooby and Waite (2014), the UK still supports multiculturalism, despite its challenges and criticisms.

British multiculturalism was complicated by the postcolonial influx of immigrants, and the UK became culturally diverse in the twentieth century after World War II and the establishment of the Commonwealth after decolonisation. Most of Britain’s new arrivals were from Commonwealth nations, with similar cultural ties to the empire; since most of the immigrants were from the Caribbean. Unlike Britain, Australian multiculturalism, as examined next, has been a response to immigration associated with settlement policies and services (Soutphommasane 2012).

Multiculturalism in Australia

Multiculturalism is defined as a system in which people with different backgrounds can interact, coexist and subsequently learn the culture of others by transcending the borders caused by racial, gender and generational differences (Hughes 1993). A multicultural society is essentially a multi-ethnic society. Australia is, and has always been, a multicultural society, and a short history of multiculturalism in Australia will help relate past developments to current issues. The establishment of the Australian Federation was based on a phase of lenient British imperial policy, which provided better employment opportunities to British subjects in the workplace, especially in the public sector. Between Federation and World War I, politicians supported legislation restricting non-British immigration, and favoured adherence to ‘racial purity’ and ‘racial superiority’ and the protection of Australian jobs (Cooper 2012). In today’s terms, the workplace environment in the early days of Australian federation involved systematic discrimination against non-British subjects.

From the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Restriction Act 1901 until 1966, the approach to immigration in Australia was influenced by the ‘White Australia’ policy, which encouraged the assimilation of new arrivals into the dominant Anglo-Australian culture. Thus, it was up to ‘them’ to like ‘us’ (Lever-Tracey and Quinlan 1988). This is particularly important because the White Australia policy has had a long influence on Australia’s social development. This policy resulted in the construction of a populist national identity, which led to the exclusion and marginalisation of groups (Dunn et al. 2004).

After World War II, the ethnic mix of immigrants contributed to both the replacement of the White Australia policy and the introduction of a policy of multiculturalism by the Australian Labor Government in 1973. Multiculturalism in Australia as an official policy emerged in 1973 to ease the restrictions of the assimilation policies of the 1940s and 1950s. This new policy expected new settlers to learn English, acquire Australian cultural practices and become as one with Australian-born people (Koleth 2010). However, in the 1970s, there was acknowledgement that Australian society had changed in the previous two decades. There was a shift from a policy of assimilation aimed at maintaining a single cultural identity, while nominally acknowledging the language of multiculturalism and self-determination (Markus 2011).

The most significant cultural driver in Australia since World War II has been the overwhelming transformation of Australia from an Anglo-Celtic society to one of the world’s most culturally diverse nations. Table 1.10 illustrates the influx of migrants and the extent of change in both the Australian population and workforce. The 2011 census revealed that over 30% of Australia’s population was born overseas, and a further 20% had at least one parent born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] 2012). In the 2016 census, the share of Australian population born overseas had increased to 33% (ABS 2016). Thus, the effect of multiculturalism was so great that multicultural policy put an end to the concept that other cultures were inferior to the ‘mainstream’ culture of white British Australia. Multiculturalism became an official policy in Australia in 1973, thereby easing the restrictions of the assimilation policies of the 1940s and 1950s.

The results of the latest national census detailed in Table 1.11 show that Australia is changing rapidly as a culturally diverse nation. The 2016 census revealed that two-thirds of the Australian population (67%) were born in Australia, while about half of Australians (49%) were either born overseas or had one or both parents born overseas. England and New Zealand remain the next most common countries of birth after Australia. However, the current census showed there has been an increase since the 2011 census in the number of people born in China and India. The statistics given for those born in China increased from 6.0% to 8.3%, and those born in India increased from 5.6% to 7.4% in the 2016 census. The clear majority of Australians recorded a religion in the 2016 census; however, the ‘no religion’ count increased to almost one-third of the Australian population, from 22% to 30% between 2011 and 2016. Australian statistician David W Kalisch (2016, 2) stated:

Table 1.11 Statistics of a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Australia

	2016	2011
Language spoken at home (top five)
1	English only—72.7%	English only—76.8%
2	Mandarin—2.5%	Mandarin—1.6%
3	Arabic—1.4%	Italian—1.4%
4	Cantonese—1.2%	Arabic—1.3%
5	Vietnamese—1.2%	Cantonese—1.2%
Country of birth (top five)
1	Australia—66.7%	Australia—69.8%
2	England—3.9%	England—4.2%
3	New Zealand—2.2%	New Zealand—2.2%
4	China—2.2%	China—1.5%
5	India—1.9%	India—1.4%
Religion (top five)
1	No religion—30.1%	Catholic—25.3%
2	Catholic—22.6%	No religion—22.3%
3	Anglican—13.3%	Anglican—17.1%
4	Uniting Church—3.7%	Uniting Church—5.0%
5	Christian, nfd—2.6%	Presbyterian—2.8%

Source: ABS (2016).

As a result of the waves of immigration since 1788, Australia has developed into a multicultural society. Thus, the influx of migration has increased migrant participation in the workforce, leading to the current Australian policy and legislative framework. Nareen Young, CEO of the Diversity Council Australia (2011), claimed that Australia is stable and successful because it is embracing cultural diversity, and stated a firm belief that diversity is an enduring strength. The President of Multicultural Development Australia, Jose Zepeda (2002), also emphasised the importance of inclusiveness in a multicultural workplace as a part of multicultural development. However, it seems there is not enough evidence supporting the claims by Young and Zepeda, given the limited amount of research on diversity management in Australia.

Previous research indicates that multiculturalism is valued in Australia and makes people more open to other cultures, and more open to changing and learning from others (Ang et al. 2006). Changes in attitude can arise from new generations, and the benefits of multiculturalism along with interactive cultural diversity appear to be increasing and more accepted as part of mainstream culture. Hence, the diversity-related problems occurring today may decrease when today’s youngsters become tomorrow’s adults. However, the current literature does not indicate whether organisations use their diverse employees’ multicultural skills. This book specifically addresses this issue and analyses to what extent organisations use the rich skillsets of their multicultural workforces, and promote diversity to take precedence over assimilation.

Immigrants bring many benefits to their newly adopted country. Collins (2008) explained the economic benefits of immigration as similar to those of international trade. Immigration affects the receiving country, and Collins (2008) proposed three levels of these effects in Australia. The first effect is permanent immigration, which in recent years has reverted to high rates after falling to lower levels. The second effect is the high level of immigration because of the reduction in unemployment rates and high demand for labour. The third effect is temporary immigration, which has increased with globalisation. However, Collins’s analysis of the effect of immigration on Australia seems to provide only a partial picture of what is actually happening. This is evident in the lack of emphasis he placed on the immigration of unskilled migrants, which presents social cohesion challenges. This has led to changes in immigration policies, not only in Australia, but also in other migrant-receiving countries, such as the US, the UK and Canada. These policy changes are designed to attract more well-educated professionals and skilled workers, while controlling the admission of unskilled migrants and asylum seekers. Further, to keep Australia’s economy growing, economic realities dictate that immigration must continue, so that the country has the required skills to achieve economic growth and play a significant role in the global labour market (Easson 2013). This reality highlights the need to manage a diverse workforce effectively so that organisations in specific sectors and in the Australian economy in general can reap the benefits offered by having a multicultural workforce.

It should also be mentioned that the increasing number of immigrants in a national economy poses some serious challenges. Thus, it is important to discuss the flow of immigrants into Australia and the difference they have made in the development of Australia, including their effect on employment as newcomers. Immigrant groups vary and their lives do not fit neatly within national borders. Questions have arisen in relation to the influx of immigrants and whether these new arrivals pose a threat to the jobs of other citizens, welfare state, national identity, way of life, freedom and security, or whether their diversity enriches the economy, culture and society. Thus, certain measurements have been taken to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages of bringing in more immigrants, how much Australia values diversity, the level of fear concerning inter-ethnic clashes and how much flexibility Australia has to embrace the changes immigration causes (Legrain 2007). Immigration policy plays an important role in the influx of skilled immigrants to fill the labour shortages in Australia, yet still places the onus on management to provide a workable strategy to manage diversity in the workplace, as the demographics of organisations are changing under the pressure of increasing levels of diversity in Australia as a migrant-receiving country. This leads to an increased level of uncertainty in the existing Australian workforce. Workplaces in Australia are significantly different from what they were a decade ago with regard to diversity among staff, and organisations must acknowledge and adjust to this diversity.

The political discourse also confirms the development of Australia as a multicultural society. For example, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke (quoted in Foster and Stockley 1988) stated that Australia has been developing as a multicultural society for 200 years as a result of the wave of immigrants that added to the diversity of Australian culture. Another former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser (2011) stated that diversity through multiculturalism is a quality to be embraced, as well as a source of social wealth and dynamism. Fraser (2011) further argued that multiculturalism encourages all Australians to learn and benefit from each other’s heritage because multiculturalism focuses on diversity and interaction, and not division and isolation; thus, it considers respect for law and democratic institutions and processes.

However, with the election of the new Liberal Commonwealth Government in September 2013, there was a shift in multicultural policy in Australia. This shift was evidenced by the change of the name of the relevant federal government department from the ‘Department of Immigration and Citizenship’ to the ‘Department of Immigration and Border Protection’, as well as the transfer of the multicultural affairs portfolio from this ministry to the Ministry of Social Services (Abbott 2013). In addition, the previous Prime Minister Tony Abbott (2012) depicted himself as a convert multiculturalist by stating that multiculturalism allows migrants to assimilate gradually as they wish. It is evident that Abbott’s concept of multiculturalism in Australia, with its emphasis on assimilation, does not align with the common understanding of multiculturalism in the literature, which is not based solely on assimilation. The effect of Abbot’s new policy of multiculturalism on organisations and the diverse workforce is yet to be seen. Thus far, there is no evidence of any legislation enacted by this new government that would affect the management of diversity in the workplace. As detailed in the following paragraphs, there are advocates and opponents of multiculturalism in Australia, and their views provide insights into how multiculturalism is regarded in social and political contexts.

In relation to changes in the understanding of diversity, it is argued that Australia has moved from the age of inequality to the age of equity in the past four decades, as differences have been acknowledged and organisations have deliberately benefited from the diversity of their workforces, as illustrated in Figure 1.2.

The changing nature of diversity in Australia raises important questions regarding the strategic management of diverse workforces. It also poses serious challenges to organisations, particularly in reshaping their organisational practice to acknowledge and transcend differences and use the benefits offered by a multicultural workforce. Cultural experiences and skills are important to Australian organisations because of the ongoing changes of demographics in the Australian workforce; however, they must be carefully managed.

Some managers cannot distinguish diversity from inclusion. Diversity implies that organisations employ people from different backgrounds and subsequently become diverse, while inclusion involves recognising the differences and values of each employee. Interestingly, inclusion has started to appear as a new paradigm in Australian social policy (Chidiac 2015). Social inclusion is an old idea that promotes building communities in which all people feel that they belong, can contribute and are valued. In principle, social inclusion would ensure a fair go for everyone, irrespective of family of origin. Workplace diversity and inclusion cover many positive aspects of life, such as removing barriers to ensure that all employees participate fully in the workplace, and recognising the value of the cultural differences that each employee brings to the work environment, and how to manage them. Therefore, diversity and inclusiveness are essential business tools in the workplace today. Clearly, the acknowledgement of cultural diversity enables managers to maximise and capitalise on the different skills of employees from different cultures.

As discussed in detail by Shore et al. (2011), the inclusion paradigm is important to organisations when dealing with diverse workforces. According to this paradigm, in a multicultural and inclusive organisation, the organisational strategy, operation and management, as well as the organisational values and success, are shaped by the diversity knowledge and perspectives brought by the members of different groups. The adoption of social inclusion was a feature of the government under John Howard in Australia between 1996 and 2007, and was widely advanced by the Australian Council of Social Service. The government under Kevin Rudd in 2008 established the Australian Social Inclusion Board as the main advisory body to the Commonwealth Government, and pursued a proactive social inclusion policy by asserting that Australians must be given the opportunity to secure employment, access services, connect with others through family, deal with personal crises and have their voices heard. In the current policy, the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared the abolition of the Social Inclusion Board in a press release on 23 September 2013 (Chidiac 2015). This could be seen as evidence of the removal of emphasis on social inclusion by the current Australian government, or that the current government considers this is no longer an issue requiring significant or special consideration. Either way, the practice of social inclusion should be further investigated. Social, cultural and demographic changes in Australia over the last two decades will continue to affect the workforce in terms of social inclusion, given that inequality can be exacerbated by differences in gender, culture, ethnicity and location (Hugo 2011). Despite recent changes, cultural and linguistic diversity remain core features of contemporary Australian social and business life, and provide cultural and business advantages to organisations (Chidiac 2015).

Advocacy is about influencing and changing policies, programs and barriers that affect participation in a diverse workforce. This understanding of advocacy was expanded to multicultural societies by Cattalini (1995), who conjectured that the purpose of the three policies—assimilation, integration and multiculturalism—was to embrace the concept of ‘oneness’, which has many elements, such as ‘one people’, ‘one nation’ and being a ‘true Australian’. He further argued that Australian assimilation demanded and encouraged a ‘oneness’ that implied ‘sameness’, and was characterised by ‘exclusive policies’. Multiculturalism recognised various cultures in Australia and subsequently created ‘inclusiveness’ as a policy for ‘all Australians’ (Cattalini 1995). A prominent advocate of multiculturalism in Australia, Professor George Zubrzycki—once called ‘the father of multiculturalism’—played a significant role in developing multiculturalism in Australia in the 1970s, when the policy was first developed (Jupp 2009). Multiculturalism is intended to enable mixed populations to live together in major cities, while having different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds or other distinct features (Jupp and Clyne 2010).

Admittedly, multiculturalism means different things to different people. While some people regard it as a contested concept, others view it as a means of assimilating immigrants into a majority culture. Australian multicultural society is the result of massive waves of immigrants after World War II. The word ‘multicultural’ was first officially used in Australia in August 1973 in a speech delivered by Al Grassby (quoted in Soutphommasane 2012, 2–3), the then Minister for Immigration under the Gough Whitlam Labor Government. This speech was titled, ‘A Multicultural Society for the Future’, and contemplated the appearance of Australia in the year 2000:

Multiculturalism has received strong support from political circles in Australia. For example, the former Immigration and Citizenship Minister Chris Bowen (quoted in Levey 2012, xv) asserted in a speech, titled ‘The Genius of Australian Multiculturalism’, that:

At the beginning of 2001, when opening an exhibition, ‘Belonging: A Century Celebrated’, at the State Library of New South Wales, William Deane (quoted in Headon 2007, 180), former Governor-General of Australia, presented what he termed the ‘Three strands of our Australian identity’, one of which was Australia’s multicultural inclusiveness:

However, there is no evidence supporting the view that multiculturalism leads to a free and equal society. This book argues that the success of Australian multiculturalism is attributable to three factors. The first factor is the insistence in Australian multicultural policy for ‘respect for traditional Australian values’ as stated by the former Immigration and Citizenship Minister (Levey 2012). The traditional Australian values include liberal democratic values, such as freedom of the individual, gender equality, tolerance, the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and English as the national language. The second factor is the Australian ‘citizenship-based model’, where full rights and benefits are afforded to those who pledge commitment as citizens. The third factor is the bipartisan support for the policy, whereby both Labor and Liberal Governments have supported and guided multiculturalism policy. The extent to which these three political factors have led to a healthy environment for organisations to effectively access the benefits offered by a diverse workforce is yet to be determined. Political support for multiculturalism in Australian policy can lead to positive outcomes, whereby organisations can benefit from immigrants’ skills. However, to achieve this, organisations should implement appropriate policies to harness the benefits offered by diverse workforces.

In Australia, opponents exist alongside the proponents for multiculturalism. Opposition to multiculturalism began in the early stages of its introduction, and for example, Collins (1988) argued that giving minorities rights tends to cause division in society, and that granting special rights to minorities threatens to divide the nation into many tribes. He further stated that multiculturalism is costly because it has given the ‘ethnic industry’ the ability to influence government spending in its favour, away from other Australians. Similarly, Clancy (2007) argued that, prior to 1970, Australia enjoyed core social values similar to other English-speaking and European nations, yet the introduction of multiculturalism caused a profound change. In addition, Clancy stated that, prior to 1970, Australia enjoyed a social consensus—a general acceptance of rights and responsibilities—yet multiculturalism destroyed this balance, and equal treatment under accepted laws no longer exists. In contrast to Clancy, many believe that multiculturalism did not destroy the balance of rights and responsibilities—instead, it has, at least in principle, extended the rights enjoyed by Anglo-Celtic Australians to all Australians, regardless of their ethnic origins.

Opposition to multiculturalism is evident in the claim by critics from the left and right sides of politics that Anglo-Australians do not recognise themselves in the new narrative of multicultural Australia. Hodge and O’Carroll (2006) argued that opponents of multiculturalism are viewed as being on the right spectrum of politics, while the Australian left maintains a negative attitude to multiculturalism. An opponent of multiculturalism is the Aboriginal poet and activist, who was originally named Kath Walker, yet changed her name to Oodgeroo Noonuccal (quoted in Hodge and O’Carroll 2006), and claimed that Australia has consistently been a ‘dumping ground’ for foreign cultures. Noonuccal (quoted in Hodge and O’Carroll 2006, 111) called multiculturalism the ‘blind prejudice to cultural differences’ of Australia. Thus, in multicultural Australia, there has been opposition to multiculturalism from various sections of the community who hold diverse opinions about what it represents. Further, Patterson (2007) went to the extreme by claiming that Australia is simultaneously faced with the threats of multiculturalism and ‘Asianisation’, and that this is a threat to Australian unity, harmony and coexistence. Patterson advocated the defence of British and national heritage. Over the last 10 years, multiculturalism has been criticised by opponents who have called for a retrieval of the earlier policies of assimilation and integration. The opponents of multiculturalism essentially prefer the ‘old days’ of assimilation to social tension and divisiveness (Koleth 2010).

In addition to opposition to multiculturalism from different social groups, political opposition to multiculturalism is very active in Australia. Waves of opposition to multiculturalism led to the rise of the One Nation Party, formed by Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s, which demonised multiculturalism and called for its abolition on the basis that it signified a threat to Australian ‘culture’ (Dellal 2013). A Sri Lankan-born pastor, Daniel Nalliah, also launched a political party, the Rise Up Australia Party, based on opposition to multiculturalism, and committed to keeping ‘Australia for Australians’ (Medhora 2013). Further opposition was apparent in 2007 when the term ‘multiculturalism’ was eradicated from official discourse by removing the word from the newly renamed Department of Immigration and Citizenship (Ho 2013). Therefore, in the Australian context, multiculturalism has become a political issue, and the result of recent elections supports that view. It can also be argued that, despite the anti-discrimination laws that have been enacted in the past three decades, anti-multicultural political discourse still receives public support in Australia.

Given the major points raised by the opponents and proponents of multiculturalism, it is important to examine workplace demographics and the associated diversity management considerations. These considerations have become important issues for governments and private enterprises because of the free movement of labour as a result of globalisation, and the struggle for human rights by minority groups in the employment sector. The social and political tensions between the opponents and proponents of multiculturalism have affected organisational practices relating to the management of diversity.

Summary

This chapter explains multiculturalism and civil rights movements, and the different meanings of multiculturalism, including European approaches to multiculturalism. It discusses the immigration and multicultural policies and elimination of divisions between the majority and minorities and the acceptance of others.

The shift that occurred in global structures after the attacks on 11 September 2001 is explained by focusing on, and becoming concerned about, immigration. Further attacks occurred in Madrid, London and the Netherlands which created a conflict between radical Islam and democracy. It is further explained how the waves of newcomers into the US changed the social fabric, and the moves that lead to multicultural and multiracial American society. In addition, details of the implementation of multiculturalism in Canada are explained, as well as the recognition of other cultures into the country and the benefits of immigration, by accepting migrants and embracing their cultures.

This chapter also highlights how the UK became culturally diverse, and how immigrants entered the UK contributing to the multicultural fabric of society. Issues of great concerns are raised in relation to British citizens and their religious loyalties which created friction and conflict. Additionally, this chapter outlines the emergence of multiculturalism in Australia, the benefits brought by the influx of immigrants leading to the development of a multicultural society in the country. The role of immigration, which provided skills, is emphasised with the significant change that occurred in the workplaces.