Idealism, realism, and immigration: David Miller’sStrangers in Our Midst

Abstract

David Miller's Strangers in our Midst is an important contribution to the debate among political philosophers about how liberal democratic states should deal with the issue of migration. But it is also a thoughtful statement concerning how best to do political philosophy and, as such, contributes also to the growing debate within Anglo-American political theory about the relative merits of 'ideal' versus 'non-ideal' normative theorising. Miller's argument in the book builds on his earlier published work in suggesting that political philosophy should be 'for Earthlings': it should not be understood as a process of ideal theorising which ignores political reality. He argues that normative theorists should seek to resolve complex political problems by taking seriously the political context that makes these problems complex, rather than putting aside that context in the interests of deriving first principles. This is a controversial approach, which requires political philosophers to take more seriously than they often do the expressed concerns of citizens living in democratic states and the practical problems associated with applying normative principles in ways which actually help address the issue at hand. This piece discusses some of these themes, and the issue of migration more generally, in order to help frame the debate which follows.

When the people are not reasonable: Multiculturalism and realistic normative theory in the contemporary era

“…The politics of the early twenty-first century has revealed all too clearly that many citizens do not see members of other cultures, or holders of other beliefs, as equal to them, or the kind of people that they want to reach consensus with. Majorities have become much more hostile to minority identities and practices (Parvin, 2009(Parvin, , 2017a. Citizens have become fearful of the effects that immigration and diversity will have on social unity, on shared values, and on public services.…”

“…Debates between ideal and non-ideal theorists, and between ‘moralists’ and political realists, about how realistic normative theorising should be have fundamentally altered the practice (Sleat, 2017; Stemplowska and Swift, 2012; Valentini, 2012). Outside the discipline, the political landscape has changed profoundly in ways which exert pressure on enduring assumptions among political theorists about how liberal democratic states should resolve questions about immigration and diversity (Parvin, 2009), 2017. While commitment to some sort of multiculturalism has endured among many philosophers , many outside of academia have proclaimed the death of multiculturalism as a political project, following widespread concerns about radicalization, the growth of terrorism and perceived negative social consequences of emphasizing difference over unity (Blair, 2006; Cameron, 2011; Parvin, 2009, 2018b; Phillips, 2004; Toynbee, 2004).…”

Engaging Vulnerabilities: An Outline for a Responsive and Responsible Theory

“…91 91 Therefore, I fundamentally disagree with Parvin's positive assessment of Miller's methodology (Parvin 2016). …”

“…12 12 For some of the many academic responses to the book see Angeli (2016); Fine (2016); Kukathas (2016); Owen (2016); Parvin (2016); McNicoll (2016); Waldron (2016); Baderin et al (2017); Bosniak (2017); Parekh (2017); Piras (2017); Owen (2017); Spring (2018); Thomassen et al (2017). For some of Miller's interventions in the media and responses to it, see Miller (2016b); Sager (2016a); Ryerson (2016); Sanneh (2016); Williams (2016); Hoskins (2017); Sager (2016b).…”

Diversity in an Anti-immigration Era: Theories, controversies, principles

“…For others still, it came even later, with the emergence of populist movements and widespread anti-immigration sentiments across the UK, Europe, and the USA, in part driven by the 'migration crisis' in Europe and the Middle East (Parvin, 2017). That phenomenon, which continues to play out across many European states as well as the USA, represents among other things the hardening of the anti-immigration sentiment that had been evolving for a long time in response not only to the political implications of the 'multiculturalist project' but also the founding ideas at its heart.…”