Constructions of Cultural Identity: Multiculturalism and Exclusion
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00185 |
| Author | Sasja Tempelman |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
| Published date | 01 March 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Constructions of Cultural Identity:
Multiculturalism and Exclusion
SASJA TEMPELMAN
University of Leyden
The article identi®es a core dilemma in the debate on multiculturalism: although the
politics of recognition aims at including cultural groups within the political com-
munity, it may inevitably have exclusive eects of its own. This dilemma is illumin-
ated by an investigation of the attempts by Charles Taylor, Bhikhu Parekh and
Will Kymlicka to develop a theory of multiculturalism. Using a typology of multi-
culturalist approaches, the paper identi®esthe exclusive consequences of each theory.
Rather than seek an alternative non-exclusivepolitics of recognition, it argues for an
approach that distinguishes between situations of multiculturalism.
In this article I examine how cultural identity is conceived within liberal political
theory, what kind of politics of multiculturalism are proposed on the basis of
these conceptions, and what the weaknesses of these politics might be.1`Multi-
culturalism', on my view, refers to the doctrine that cultural diversity should be
recognized as a permanent and valuable part of political societies. Dierent
theories of multiculturalism work out dierent versions of this doctrine. In
order to investigate the ways in which cultural identity is de®ned in theories of
multiculturalism, I introduce a typology developed by Eisenstadt and Giesen
for the analysis of the formation of collective identity.2
Eisenstadt and Giesen's typology rests on two main assumptions. The ®rst is
that collective identities are not naturally generated but are the product of
ongoing processes of social construction. This construction involves the ± more
or less intentional ± drawing of boundaries that demarcate the collective entity
and that determine who and what belongs inside and who and what belongs
outside. In other words, the demarcation of cultural identity inevitably entails
processes of inclusion and exclusion. The second assumption is that this
de®nition can occur in various ways. Eisenstadt and Giesen distinguish three
ideal-typical modes of constructing collective identity. Each type entails a
speci®c way of de®ning the nature of the collectivity, the basis of membership,
the way in which outsiders are regarded and in which relations between
members and non-members are conducted, and the kind of exclusion that takes
place.
The ®rst type of collective identity is primordiality. Primordial identity is
based on features that cannot be changed or questioned, they appear to be given
#Political Studies Association 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 CowleyRoad, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Political Studies (1999), XLVII, 17±31
1I thank Mark Bovens, Herman van Gunsteren, Hans Oversloot, Pieter Pekelharing, John Rex,
and Robert-Jan van der Veen for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
2S. N. Eisenstadt and B. Giesen, `The construction of collective identity', Archives of European
Sociology, XXXVI (1995), 72±192.
To continue reading
Request your trial