Making sense of diversity in a
“post-multicultural” world: a
commentary on Vertovec (2010)
Heaven Crawley
It barely seems conceivable that Vertovec’s whole, as elitist and disconnected from the needs
paper “Towards post-multiculturalism? Chang- and aspirations of other towns and cities, many of
ing community, conditions and contexts of diver- which are reeling from economic decline and the
sity” was published in ISSJ just eight years effects on local services associated with more recent
ago. Since that time the world, or at least austerity policies.
those parts of the global north
Vertovec foresaw these
to which his analysis was prichallenges to multiculturalCentre for Trust Peace and Social Relations,
marily oriented, has changed
ism, many of which were well
Coventry University, UK.
almost beyond recognition.
documented even before his
Email: heaven.crawley@coventry.ac.uk
This was a time before the
paper was published: growing
“Arab Spring” (2010), the conflict in Syria (2011), evidence of discrimination and racism against
the so-called “migration crisis” in Europe (2015) minorities; the rise of anti-immigrant political par(Crawley et al. 2015), Brexit (2016) and the elec- ties; low educational attainment, poor jobs and ill
tion of Trump (2016). In the UK these were the health among those from minority backgrounds; a
heady – albeit increasingly contested – final days perception that “parallel societies” were becoming
of a Labour Government which had promoted the breeding grounds for extremism. As he notes in the
benefits of diversity and multiculturalism and which opening paragraphs of his paper, “[t]he changing
was reflected, just two years after the publication nature of global migration, new social formulaof Vetovec’s paper, in the opening ceremony of tions spanning nation-states and the persistently
London Olympic Games. The games were not poor socioeconomic standing of immigrant and
without controversy but they came to symbolise ethnic minority groups” (2010, p.83) challenged
a new-found ease – at least among some sections the assumptions underpinning multiculturalism. If
of British society – with the country’s diversity, a these shifts brought into question the extent to
consequence of inward migration from all parts of which populations from diverse economic, politthe globe over the proceeding century. The open- ical, social and cultural backgrounds could live
ing ceremony unashamedly showcased the UK’s harmoniously alongside one another, the paradigmigration history with diversity and inclusion hard- matic foundations of multicultural were shattered
wired into its messaging and imagery. It reflected by terrorist attacks in the US (9/11) and the UK
and reinforced what was described at the time (7/7).
as a “deliberative multiculturalism” (Kim 2011).
The concept of “super-diversity”, first coined
But times have changed. The city of London, by Vertovec in an earlier 2007 article, is elaborated
one of the most diverse in the world with more than in his 2010 piece as both a (partial) explanation
300 languages spoken and an estimated 3.1 million for the failings of multiculturalism to deliver on its
people born outside the UK, has increasingly come promises and as a framework for finding new ways
to be seen as unrepresentative of the UK as a of addressing new challenges. These challenges,
C 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
ISSJ 227–228 associated with the shift towards forms of migration
as a result of the arrival of newer and numerically smaller populations that are more transient,
socially stratified and legally differentiated, demand
new approaches. The example of the UK is, he
suggests, a case in point, not only in terms of
migrant countries of origin, the languages spoken
and their main religion but also the complex array
of migration channels and immigration statuses to
which migrants are increasingly subjected. These
widely differing statuses – even within groups of
the same ethnic or national origin – necessitate
new ways of looking at, and understanding, social
differentiation and access to opportunities, based
not solely on ethnicity but also taking into account
other axes of difference including gender and age.
Moreover the increase in transnational linkages
and relationships, associated primarily, although
not exclusively with technological change and the
ability to maintain relationships over time and
space was, even in 2010, responsible for substantially transforming social, political, and economic
structures and associated migration practices. It is
worth remembering that the first iPhone was not
even released until the middle of 2007. Since that
time both sales of the iPhone (and other smartphones) as well as their functionality have grown
beyond recognition, contributing strongly to the
diversity and intensity of international migration,
such that they may be considered an inherent
part of the migration process (Collin et al. 2015).
These technological changes mean that “many
migrants develop and maintain strong modes of
community cohesion, but not necessarily with others in their locality of settlement” (Vertovec 2010,
p.90).
Developments in the period since Vertovec’s
paper was published confirm his conclusion that
whilst migrants seem able to adapt to these contemporary realities, others find it more difficult to
accept that “belonging, attachment and sense of
attachment are not parts of zero-sum game based
on a single place” (ibid). And so here we are,
living in turbulent political times when the (actual
and perceived) allegiances not only of migrants
but of those comfortable with the diversity they
represent, are taken as evidence of a lack of loyalty
to the values, often ill defined, of a particular
nation-state. In this context it is easy to understand
why “Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing
community, conditions and contexts of diversity”
C
2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Heaven Crawley
is one of the most cited articles in the history of
the ISSJ. As with Vertovec’s earlier (2007) paper, it
offers not just a state-of-the-art but an insight into
the evolution of thinking that has, sadly, withstood
the test of time. Vertovec rightly predicted that
migration and cultural diversity would remain high
on the public agenda for many years to come.
His concept of “post-multiculturalism” resonates
strongly with an increasing state of unease about
diversity, often reflected in an increasing onus and
obligation being placed on migrants to take up the
values and practices of the host country and to
“actively demonstrate their desire to belong” (2010,
p.91). What even he could not have anticipated,
however, was the speed and scale by which this new
“post-multicultural” world would come to pass and
its profound ramifications, not only for the ability of
migrants themselves – or certainly the poorest and
most disenfranchised among them – to move safety
between different parts of the world but across
a range of wider policy arenas where increased
migration and diversity has been positioned as a
threat. The outcome of the 2016 referendum on the
UK’s membership of the European Union is just one
example, but perhaps the clearest, of this jingoistic
nationalism in action.
None of which is to suggest that Vertovec was
right about everything. In focusing on the structural
factors leading to the demise of multiculturalism he
perhaps underestimated the extent to which meanings and emotions have emerged as core issues,
particularly in relation to Islam, with European
leaders and publics demonising the values of Islam
and their associated practices in order to demand
a homogenising assimilation (Alexander 2013). He
also underestimated the extent and ways in which
everyday experiences of diversity would ultimately
deliver improved outcomes for at least some of
those from ethnic minority backgrounds regardless
of overall shifts in public policy. The deep irony is
that even as the language of “post-multiculturalism”
dominates political and media representation of
diversity in Europe and North America, individuals and communities have become increasingly
tolerant and accepting: those of “mixed ethnicity” are among the fastest growing groups in the
British population, for example. Finding new ways
of understanding the relationship between these
divergent political, policy, and experiential trends
represents a new challenge with which we need to
contend.
14682451, 2018, 227-228, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12172 by Universität Wien, Wiley Online Library on [13/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
164
165
References
ALEXANDER, J.C., 2013. Struggling
over the mode of incorporation:
backlash against multiculturalism in
Europe. Ethnic and racial studies, 36
(4), 531–556.
COLLIN, S., KARSENTI, T. AND CALONNE,
O., 2015. Migrants’ use of
technologies: an overview of research
C
2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
objects in the field. Journal of
technologies and human usability, 10
(3-4), 15–29.
CRAWLEY, H., DÜVELL, F., JONES, K.,
MCMAHON, S. AND SIGONA, N., 2018.
Unravelling Europe’s migration crisis:
journeys over land and sea. Bristol:
Policy Press.
KIM, N-K., 2011. Deliberative
multiculturalism on new labour’s
Britain. Citizenship studies, 15 (1),
125–144.
VERTOVEC, S., 2007. Super-diversity
and its implications. Ethnic and racial
studies, 30 (6), 1024–1054.
14682451, 2018, 227-228, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/issj.12172 by Universität Wien, Wiley Online Library on [13/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A commentary on Vertovec (2010)