National Identity and Citizenship in a Multicultural Society

In certain Western European countries, the relationship between ethnic, religious, and social groupings is in crisis. Immigration, apparent difference, friction over “trigger issues” like women’s dress or religious icons, and the pervasive worries of the post-9/11 society are simpler to detect than the crisis’s true character.

In this situation, where evidence of conflict is easily available but a whole picture is more difficult to obtain, it’s not unexpected that many individuals hunt for scapegoats to help them make sense of the apparent chaos. 

Multiculturalism has been and continues to be a major issue in the media, academia, and much public debate in the first years of the millennium (especially in the United Kingdom, which is the focus of this essay).

Citizenship in a multicultural society:

Positive equality in relation to the symbolic components of public culture might be made in the same way that social democrats have a notion of positive equality in relation to socio-economic equality (what might be called social citizenship). This is founded on the idea that citizenship is more than just a legal status & set of rights; it is enhanced by a particular type of politics. Citizenship should be viewed as having the following three characteristics, each of which shows why citizenship and diversity are not mutually exclusive:

Citizenship is a pluralistic and non-transcendent concept:

Citizens are individuals with individual rights; nevertheless, these rights are not standard, and citizenship is shaped by groups of people with distinct cultures and histories. Citizenship is not a monolithic identity that exists in isolation from or transcends other identities vital to citizens, as French republicanism mandates in theory (though not usually in practise). The foundation of the United Kingdom resulted in the emergence of new political subjects (for my purposes, “citizens,” with appropriate qualifications about legal status and nomenclature), but it did not result in the elimination of the state’s constituent nations. As a result, the development of a common British citizenship was perfectly compatible with being Scottish, English, Irish, or Welsh, allowing for the concept of many identities.

Furthermore, this concept was and is not limited to constituent nations, but is broad and adaptable enough to encompass different group identities. The plurality, then, is always present – so each part of the plurality has the right to be a part of the whole while also having the right to stand up for itself and its vision of the whole.

Citizenship is a complex concept:

The plurality communicates with one another, yet it does not always agree on what it means to become a citizen. Cross-cutting regions of consensus & schism, as well as shifting coalitions across subjects, can result in a sequence of agreements and conflicts. However, there is enough consensus and, more importantly, enough interest in the issue to keep talks going. Because there are so many people involved in these discussions, rather than just two, the process is better described as “multilocal” rather than “bilateral.” The multilogues allow for viewpoints to be qualified, overlapped, synthesised, updated in light of having to cohabit with those of others, hybridised, and new modifications and discussions to be made. Citizenship’s intrinsic, developmental, work-in-progress dynamic includes such modulations and contestations.

Citizenship is spread out:

Because citizenship is not monolithic, action & power really aren’t monopolistically concentrated, and the state is not the sole locus of citizenship. We exercise our citizenship and relate to one another as fellow citizens, and as a result, we gain a better understanding of what citizenship entails in all of its dimensions, not just in terms of law and politics, but also in terms of civic discourse and action across the social spectrum (initiated through voluntary associations, community organisations, trades unions, newspapers & media, educational & religious institutions). State action, laws, regulations, and prohibitions may have a significant impact on reform; yet, public debate, ideological contestations, pressure-group mobilisation, and the diverse and (semi-) independent institutions of civil society all have a role in creating change.  

Furthermore, it is critical to define what we mean by “public” when we claim that citizenship is a public rather than a private identity. If citizenship includes concern for factors such as poverty or the qualities of prime ministerial leadership, it can be expressed in a trade union meeting or a mosque, or in the seclusion of one’s own home while reading a novel or watching a television documentary. The issue is the care for the state of the city, not the how, where and. As a result, the notion that religious places – both physically and mentally – are essentially “private” & non-civic is overly rigid and conservative.

Multiculturalism affects Identity:

Our identities are an important element of our self-concept, and they may be divided into three categories, as we taught earlier: personal, social, & cultural identities. Our identities change throughout time and are shaped by processes that began before we were born and will persist after we die. Our identities cannot be achieved in this way, and they will never be complete.

Personal identities, as you may recall, are those aspects of self that are largely intrapersonal and linked to our life experiences. You might be outgoing, enjoy riddles, listen to hip-hop music, or have a lovely singing voice, for example.

Our identities are indeed the aspects of ourselves that are derived through our membership in interpersonally engaged social organisations. For instance, we derive components of our social identity from a family, a fan base for a sports team, or choir membership. Our personal identity choices define who we are, whilst our social identities identify us with specific groupings. We make statements about who we are and who we are not through our social identities.

Conclusion

Cultural and multicultural identities are built on socially constructed categories that teach us just a way of being and involve social behaviour or behaving standards. Cultural identities’ ways of being and societal standards for behaviour might vary over time, but what sets them apart from other social identities is their historical foundations. Consider how African Americans’ methods of being and acting have changed since the civil rights movement, or how persons with disabilities’ ways of being and acting have changed since the independent living movement and the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States.