Differentiating multiculturalisms: A rejoinder

Abstract

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