National Identity – A Multiculturalist’s Approach

Abstract

'Multiculturalists' in Britain have advocated the importance of national identity since the 1970s, yet we know very little about the ways in which they do so. In this article, I will examine how one of Britain's most prominent multiculturalists, Bhikhu Parekh, has advocated the importance of national identity since the 1970s. I will show that Parekh's way of thinking about national identity is distinct from the ways in which other prominent thinkers discuss such an identity, and valuable, as Parekh has insights into what such an identity is and why we should value it. This article will thus identify a previously unnoticed, distinct and valuable way of thinking about national identity, which comes from a multiculturalist in Britain. KEYWORDS Multiculturalism; national identity; Bhikhu Parekh; liberal nationalism Those in Britain who show why cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue are valuable and who advocate government policies that promote Britain's multicultural nature are often called 'multiculturalists' (

The Bristol school of multiculturalism

“…The concept underscores the BSM's concern with cultural and political formations in their particularity, and its aversion to abstract and universalising political theory. As others have noted, there are clear echoes here to Oakeshott's (1991) idea of the 'intimations' of a political tradition (Kelly, 2001;Uberoi, 2015bUberoi, , 2018.…”

“…The three also edit the Politics of Identity and Citizenship book series published by Palgrave Macmillan. In addition, Uberoi has published articles examining Parekh's ideas on multiculturalism and national identity (Uberoi, 2015a(Uberoi, , 2015b(Uberoi, , 2015c(Uberoi, , 2018, and he and Modood have co-edited a festschrift for Parekh .…”

The emergence of the Bristol School of Multiculturalism

“…Instead, Parekh (2000a: 339) examines, relates and defends the presuppositions of intercultural dialogue among culturally diverse citizens as such dialogue can reveal the cultural specificity of their assumptions and conceptions. Such dialogue also helps to resolve disputes among citizens (Uberoi, 2015). Again, the idea of such dialogue came from a thinker whom Parekh (1990: 39) wrote books about: Gandhi.…”

“…Similarly, Parekh (2000a: 337) offers a ‘perspective’ from which he sees why human beings are influenced by internally plural cultures and why they benefit from intercultural dialogue. As Parekh defends at length what he presupposes (Uberoi, 2015), his perspective on multiculturalism attempts to be philosophical in the sense that is discussed in EM. Hence, whereas RP provided Modood with reasons to avoid a liberal multiculturalism such as Kymlicka’s and to offer a political perspective, EM gave Parekh reasons to avoid a liberal theory and to offer, instead, what he conceived as a philosophical perspective of multiculturalism.…”

“…In time, Uberoi (2015) came to endorse the philosophical perspective of multiculturalism that Parekh articulated and to learn much from Modood’s political perspective. And Meer (2010: 2, 46) came to learn much from Parekh’s philosophical perspective and to endorse Modood’s political perspective of a ‘British tradition of multiculturalism’.…”