In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

233 chapter fifteen The State and Ethno-Religious Mobilization in Britain Tariq Modood The migration into western democratic nation-states of the last few decades has seen an assertive politics in several countries on the part of the migrants and second-generation immigrants, explored here with particular reference to Britain. Of course, migrants and members of minorities do not have to participate in politics as migrants or as minorities; they may even eschew such categorization and the exoticness that implies, and certainly they may participate in politics in a variety of ways typical of nonmigrants. My concern here, however, is ideologies of identity and mobilization that have been present under certain racialized conditions prevailing in Britain and that have made certain kinds of politics possible. Let me begin by briefly considering how states may be constituted by different types of conceptions of the individual, community, and the state. How a state or a citizenry responds to the claims of migrants, even which kinds of claims can be seriously and legitimately made by migrants and others, depends on the extent to which people believe that individuals, (ethnic) groups, and the nation-state form coherent unities, are the bearers of ethical claims, and can be integrated with one another. Five ideal types, marking five possible ways in which people may respond to the contemporary challenge of diversity consequent on immigration, can be distinguished: the decentered state, the liberal state, the republic, the federation of communities, and the plural state.1 The purpose of the typology is to identify the kind of state self-image that has facilitated ethno-religious political mobilization. It may be characterized as the plural state, but it is better understood through its comparison and contrast with the other types. These other types, traces of which and advocates for which can be found in Britain as well as elsewhere, help to clarify some of the relevant, important characteristics of the British state and political culture or, at least, some representations of it. This chapter thus reflects a certain degree of Anglo-centrism. My focus is on Britain but not merely descriptively but also in terms of developing an analytical frame that illuminates and explains Britain. Hence, Britain is not just 234 Tariq Modood one case illustrating some lawlike generalization or model. Nor does it display some kind of exceptionality or stand outside all comparative analytical endeavors. My hope is that the analytical frame deployed here can be the basis of comparative work but with the expectation that considerable revisions, adjustments, and extensions will be necessary before it is adequate for other national cases. Cultural Identity and the State: Five Ideal Types The Decentered State Some theorists describe the present condition of the world as postnational or postmodern. Among the many things meant by this term is the assertion that, due to factors such as migration and the globalization of economics, consumption, and communications, societies can no longer be constituted by stable collective purposes and identities organized territorially by the nation-state. In its most radical version, this view rejects not only the possibility of a politically constituted multiculturalism but also the idea of a unified self per se: If we feel we have a unified identity...it is only because we construct a comforting story or “narrative of the self” about ourselves....The fully unified, completed, secure and coherent identity is a fantasy. Instead, as the systems of meaning and cultural representation multiply, we are confronted by a bewildering, fleeting multiplicity of possible identities, any one of which we could identify with—at least temporarily. (Hall 1992a, 277). The radical multiple self has a penchant for identities but prefers surfing on the waves of deconstruction to seeking reconstruction in multiplicity. It is post-self rather than a multi-self. Even in less radical versions, the self is no more connected to one location/society/state than another, any more than the typical consumer is connected to one producer or the goods of one country. Reconciled to multiplicity as an end in itself, its vision of diversity is sometimes confined to personal lifestyles and cosmopolitan consumerism; more significantly, its vision of multiculturalism does not extend to the state, which is expected to wither away. Contemporary postnational scenarios envisage that the nation-state will increasingly decline as a focus of personal identity and loyalty as individuals identify with like-minded people across borders, based on lifestyles, cultural consumption, peripatetic careers, diasporas, and other forms of transnational networks, including those based on...

Share