Australia’s “Liberal Nationalist” Multiculturalism

Levey, Geoffrey Brahm

doi:10.1525/luminos.73.e

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 See Kymlicka's (2002, p.339) excellent division of the debate about multiculturalism into a number of stages. 5 Levey (2008Levey ( , 2018Levey ( , 2019b is exceptional among LMs because of his continuous and impressive work on national identity. 6 Such dialogue takes a particular form in BSM scholarship that is best described by Parekh (2000a, pp.268-273) but others such as Charles Taylor value it too albeit for subtly different reasons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The emergence of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism

Uberoi

Modood

2019

Ethnicities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geoffrey Brahm Levey plausibly describes how a group of scholars who he calls the ‘Bristol School of Multiculturalism’ (BSM) differ from scholars who are often called Liberal Multiculturalists (LMs). We expand Levey's analysis by showing what in the history of the BSM's thought made the liberalism and the multiculturalism of LMs unconvincing for BSM scholars. Hence, we show how certain thinkers influenced BSM scholars in ways that made them unwilling to offer liberal theories and how BSM scholars began their work with multiculturalist ideas that differ from the multiculturalist ideas of LMs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4. Levey (2008Levey ( , 2018Levey ( , 2019b is exceptional among LMs because of his continuous and impressive work on national identity. 5.…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emergence of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism

Uberoi

Modood

2019

Ethnicities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kymlicka's schema is not quite the way I would frame it. I view Australian multiculturalism as a particular iteration of liberal nationalism (Levey, 2008(Levey, , 2019b. And I view liberal nationalism as one of two broad liberal approaches to justifying multiculturalism (e.g.…”

Section: Schools Out?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But it did not dislodge 'Anglo-Australia' as the default and accepted public culture. This is true not just in practice but also in the official multicultural policy statements (Levey, 2019b). Australian federal governments have consistently declined to embed a commitment to multiculturalism in a legislative Act, let alone the Constitution.…”

Section: Three Areas Of Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating multiculturalisms: A rejoinder

Levey

2019

Ethnicities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Having read and engaged with the senior scholars of what I have called the Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) over many years, I was periodically challenged to think about how their respective approaches to interpreting and defending multiculturalism differed from my own liberal approach. More recently, it became clear to me how their positions gravitated around a common set of ideas-methodological, theoretical and political-that marked them off from avowed liberal defenders of multiculturalism (Levey, 2019a). The stimulation of that exercise continues with the comments offered here on my essay and its subject. I am most grateful to the respondents. Uberoi and Modood (2019) accept my core contention that their work along with that of Bhikhu Parekh and Nasar Meer (and a rising cadre of younger scholars mentored in Bristol) represent a distinctive approach to multiculturalism in more or less the ways I have suggested. They object to a few passing observations but otherwise devote their remarks to explaining the intellectual origins of the 'Bristol school's' positioning on multiculturalism and to restating their differences from liberal multiculturalists. As they note, I scarcely treated the BSM's engagement with the sociological study of cultural minorities. My purpose was more narrowly focused on describing and assessing the BSM's normative account of multiculturalism. Fittingly, Meer (2019) has now essayed the sociological side to the BSM's work. I will refrain from commenting here on this new statement. Goodhart (2019) agrees that the BSM scholars defend a multiculturalism that is more radical or demanding than conventional liberal accounts. He finds the BSM's positions deeply problematic in the British context and 'fuzzy' on key issues and

show abstract

The Turnbull government’s ‘Post-multiculturalism’ multicultural policy

Levey

2019

Australian Journal of Political Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia’s “Liberal Nationalist” Multiculturalism

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

The emergence of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism

The emergence of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism

Differentiating multiculturalisms: A rejoinder

The Turnbull government’s ‘Post-multiculturalism’ multicultural policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About