Abstract
In the postwar period, projects of social justice have often drawn upon ideas of national solidarity, calling upon shared national identities to mobilize support for the welfare state. Several commentators have argued that increasing immigration, and the multiculturalism policies it often gives rise to, weaken this sense of national solidarity. This creates a potential ‘progressive’s dilemma’, forcing a choice between solidarity and diversity. My aim in this paper is twofold: first, to argue for the importance of national solidarity as a progressive political resource; and, second, to discuss how it can be reconciled with support for immigration and multiculturalism. I will try to identify the prospects for a multicultural national solidarity—a multicultural welfare state, if you will—and to contrast it with the two obvious alternatives: a neoliberal multiculturalism that champions mobility and diversity at the expense of national solidarity; and a welfare chauvinism that champions national solidarity at the expense of immigrants and minorities.
This paper has been previously published in Comparative Migration Studies (2015) 3 (17): 1–19. DOI 10.1186/s40878-015-0017-4.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There are now hundreds of studies done on this topic. For recent meta-analyses of these studies, documenting their inconclusive results, see Van der Meer and Tolsma, ‘Ethnic Diversity and Its Supposed Detrimental Effects on Social Cohesion’; Stichnoth and Van der Straeten, ‘Ethnic Diversity, Public Spending, and Individual Support for the Welfare State’; and Schaeffer, Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion. As Stolle and Harell, ‘The Consequences of Ethnic Diversity’, note, this literature seems to have reached a ‘stalemate’.
- 2.
Sager, ‘Methodological Nationalism, Migration and Political Theory’.
- 3.
Sager, ‘Methodological Nationalism, Migration and Political Theory’.
- 4.
Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory.
- 5.
For influential accounts, see Moore, The Ethics of Nationalism; Miller, On Nationality; Tamir, Liberal Nationalism; Gans, The Limits of Nationalism; McCormick, ‘Nations and Nationalism’; and Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory.
- 6.
Rawls, in Political Liberalism, famously argued that political theorists need to treat these facts of pluralism as a permanent feature of any free society. Unfortunately, like most other contemporary political theorists, he does not apply his own logic to the question of units of governance, and assumes instead that preferences on that question will be unified.
- 7.
And conversely, the relatively few cases in the West where boundaries are unstable are cases of competing nation-building, as in northern Ireland, Belgium, and Cyprus. If nationhood offers the clearest route to generate converging preferences on units, competing nationhood also offers the clearest route to disrupt that convergence, generating the need for models of multination states that seek to ensure fairness amongst the competing national groups in their ability to enact their national identities (through language rights and self-government powers, and so on).
- 8.
For a related point, see Bauman’s discussion of the need to look beyond momentary ‘carnivals of solidarity’ to see whether and how solidarity operates in the ‘the silence of the dispassionate routine’ of institutionalized social life in ‘A Word in Search of Flesh’.
- 9.
As Laitinen and Pessi put it, not all pro-social feelings qualify as solidarity:
[A]s solidarity is often based on we-thinking, it can be separated not only from anti-social ego-centrism, but also from one-sided ‘thou-centrism’, such as altruism, sympathy, caring, or Christian charity. While these concentrate on the wellbeing of the other or you, the target of concern in solidarity can be us together. (Laitinen and Pessi, ‘Solidarity’, p. 2.)
- 10.
Some cosmopolitan theorists have raised philosophical objections to this picture of bounded solidarity, and argue that we should think of ourselves as equally obligated to all humans, close or distant, insiders or outsiders. I will not enter into that philosophical debate here, except to note that: (a) all existing welfare states do rely on bounded solidarity; and (b) we should not assume that renouncing appeal to bounded solidarities and removing the distinction between insiders and outsiders will lead to levelling up the treatment of outsiders. It might instead lead to levelling down of the treatment of insiders. It may be that bounded solidarity was (and continues to be) needed to motivate people to accept obligations beyond duties of rescue and humanitarian need.
- 11.
Korpi, The Democratic Class Struggle; Esping-Andersen, Politics Against Markets, and The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism; and Stephens, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism.
- 12.
Berman, The Primacy of Politics.
- 13.
Marshall, Sociology at the Crossroads, p. 96.
- 14.
See historian Ben Jackson’s observation that historically successful appeals for egalitarian politicians in the USA and the UK tended to be expressed in the idiom of national solidarity, and that ‘redistribution expressed the fairness and solidarity of the national character’. See Jackson, ‘The Rhetoric of Redistribution’, p. 239.
- 15.
There is considerable variation across time and space in the extent to which a strong welfare state is seen as necessary to instantiate this ethic of social membership—compare the US and Sweden. But while the ethic of social membership implicit in nationhood is not inherently linked to pro-redistributive views, it is inherently egalitarian in its conception of social status, or at least anti-elitist. In earlier periods of European history, elites tried to dissociate themselves from ‘the plebs’ or ‘the rabble’, and justified their powers and privileges precisely in terms of their alleged distance from the masses. The lords were seen, not only as a different class, but as a different and superior race of people, with their own language and civilization, unrelated to the folk culture of the peasants in their midst, and this was the basis of their right to rule. The rise of nationalism, by contrast, valorized ‘the people’. Nations are defined in terms of ‘the people’—that is, the mass of population on a territory, regardless of class or occupation—who become ‘the bearer of sovereignty, the central object of loyalty, and the basis of collective solidarity’ (Greenfeld, Nationalism, p. 14). The ‘arrival of nationalism’ therefore ‘was tied to the political baptism of the lower classes’ (Nairn, The Break-Up of Britain, p. 41). The use of the vernacular in modern political life is a manifestation of this shift, confirmation that the political community really does belong to the people, and not to the elite. And while national communities still exhibit major economic inequalities, the different economic classes are no longer seen as separate races or cultures. It is seen as right and proper that lower-class children are exposed to the high culture of literature and the arts (which itself has become expressed in the vernacular), while upper-class children are exposed to the history and folk culture of the people. All individuals within the territory are supposed to share in a common national culture, speak the same national language, and participate in common educational and political institutions. In short, nationalism created the myth of a single national community which encompasses all classes on the territory. And within the Western democracies, substantial progress was made towards realizing this myth, as the achievement of a wider franchise, mass literacy, and the welfare state enabled almost all citizens to participate, however unequally, in common national cultural and political institutions operating in the vernacular. This vision is under strain, given recent trends towards rising inequality, but national identity has remained strong in the modern era in part because its emphasis on the importance of ‘the people’ provides a source of dignity to all individuals, against all the other social forces that work to separate elites from the masses. We can see the Occupy movement as an attempt to reassert this image in the face of growing inequality and the societal divorce of the 1% from the masses. It is not clear that ‘postnational’ approaches have any comparable capacity to bind elites to the masses.
- 16.
This is a central theme in Brooks and Manza, Why Welfare States Persist, who argue that welfare state regimes endure, despite declining working-class power, in part because they have become embedded in public discourse and collective memories, albeit to different degrees in different countries.
- 17.
Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory.
- 18.
Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular.
- 19.
Habermas, ‘The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy’; Benhabib, Another Cosmopolitanism; and Connolly, ‘The Liberal Image of the Nation’.
- 20.
For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on immigrant-origin multiculturalism, rather than the claims of indigenous peoples or substate nations. Insofar as the latter raise issues about territorial boundaries and self-determination claims, they not only challenge the role of nationhood in generating solidarity, but even its ability to stabilize boundaries. See Kymlicka, Politics in the Vernacular.
- 21.
All these organizations eventually retreated from more extreme forms of ‘market fundamentalism’, and some commentators argue that we can therefore distinguish a ‘neoliberal era’ (say, 1980–1995) from a ‘post-neoliberal era’ (say, 1995 to the economic crisis of 2008), which did not reverse neoliberal market reforms, but which qualified and supplemented them with social investment policies. For an excellent history of neoliberalism, and its uneven rise and fall, see Evans and Sewell, ‘Neoliberalism’.
- 22.
Žižek, ‘Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism’.
- 23.
Mitchell, Crossing the Neoliberal Line.
- 24.
Cardinal and Denault, ‘Empowering Linguistic Minorities’.
- 25.
Hale, ‘Neoliberal Multiculturalism’.
- 26.
Kymlicka, ‘Neoliberal Multiculturalism?’.
- 27.
Menz, ‘European Employers and the Rediscovery of Labour Migration’.
- 28.
This trajectory is not unique to multiculturalism: for example, we can see similar transformations from emancipatory to neoliberal versions of gay rights. And in both cases, the trajectory is contested, and the struggle between the two versions remains ongoing.
- 29.
Sainsbury, Welfare States and Immigrant Rights; Koning, ‘Selective Solidarity’; and Reeskens and Van Oorschot, ‘Disentangling the “New Liberal Dilemma”’. In these cases, ‘a strong defense of social solidarity—a strong internal ‘community of fate’—seems to have come bundled with strict boundaries to the outside’ (Thelen, Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity, p. 200).
- 30.
Logically, a fourth option is neoliberal assimilation. As noted earlier, that indeed was the initial position of Thatcher and Reagan, and it seems to be returning in some parts of the right in the US and UK, and perhaps elsewhere. From a philosophical perspective, neoliberal assimilation involves a puzzling mix of economic liberalism and cultural conservatism.
- 31.
Collier, Exodus, pp. 264–5.
- 32.
And Collier himself provides no evidence that multiculturalism policies erode solidarity.
- 33.
Reynolds, ‘Introduction’, p. 1.
- 34.
Scholz, Political Solidarity, p. 10.
- 35.
Reynolds, ‘Introduction’, p. 1; Alexander, ‘Morality as a Cultural System’.
- 36.
Stjernø, Solidarity in Europe, p. 20.
- 37.
Bayertz, ‘Solidarity and the Welfare State’, p. 293; Scholz, Political Solidarity, p. 10.
- 38.
Wilde, ‘The Concept of Solidarity’, p. 171. For similar observations about how solidarity has been dismissed by academics as ‘rhetorical’ or ‘ceremonial’, see Reynolds, ‘Introduction’, 1; and Laitinen and Pessi, ‘Solidarity’, 1.
- 39.
Alexander, ‘Morality as a Cultural System’, p. 303.
- 40.
Alexander, ‘Morality as a Cultural System’, p. 304.
- 41.
Calhoun, ‘Imagining Solidarity’, p. 153.
- 42.
Banting and Kymlicka, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State, and ‘Introduction’; Brady and Finnigan, ‘Does Immigration Undermine Public Support for Social Policy’; Kesler and Bloemraad, ‘Does Immigration Erode Social Capital?’; Crepaz, ‘If You Are My Brother, I May Give You a Dime!’; and Guimond et al., ‘Diversity Policy, Social Dominance, and Intergroup Relations’.
- 43.
For arguments about the stability of attitudes of solidarity, see Brooks and Manza, Why Welfare States Persist; and Cavaillé and Trump, ‘The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences’.
- 44.
Cavaillé and Trump, ‘The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences’.
- 45.
See also McCall, The Undeserving Rich, on public opinion regarding ‘the undeserving rich’.
- 46.
For a review of these findings, see Van Oorschot, ‘Making the Difference in Social Europe’.
- 47.
Van Oorschot, ‘Making the Difference in Social Europe’, p. 25. According to Van Oorschot, we should expect immigrants to be seen as undeserving because ‘one can assume that migrants will tend to “score” less positively, or more negatively, on all criteria usually apply when assessing a person’s or a group’s deservingness’. See Van Oorschot, ‘Immigrants, Welfare and Deservingness’, p. 6.
- 48.
As Van Oorschot notes, deservingness judgements are essentially the flip side of feelings of solidarity: ‘In fact, one could argue that the difference between both concepts is more a matter of disciplinary origin and context, with “solidarity” having a tradition in sociology, and “deservingness” having its roots in social psychology’ (Van Oorschot, ‘Immigrants, Welfare and Deservingness’, p. 10n3.
- 49.
That voting clout does indeed matter has been documented by Koopmans et al., ‘Citizenship Rights for Immigrants’.
- 50.
See, for example, Kochenov, ‘Growing apart Together’.
- 51.
Van der Waal et al., ‘Three Worlds of Welfare Chauvinism?’; Larsen, The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes; Swank and Betz, ‘Globalization, the Welfare State and Right-wing Populism in Western Europe’; Van Oorschot, ‘Who Should Get What, and Why’; Kumlin and Rothstein, ‘Questioning the New Liberal Dilemma’; and Rothstein, ‘Solidarity, Diversity and the Quality of Government’.
- 52.
Hacker, ‘The Institutional Foundations of Middle-class Democracy’.
- 53.
‘Prepare not repair’, as the slogan goes. See Morel et al., ‘Beyond the Welfare State as We Knew It?’.
- 54.
Ackerman and Alstott, The Stakeholder Society.
- 55.
Rawls, A Theory of Justice.
- 56.
For a helpful review of these models of egalitarian capitalism, see Ackerman et al., Redesigning Distribution, and O’Neill and Williamson, Property-Owning Democracy.
- 57.
Hacker, ‘The Institutional Foundations of Middle-class Democracy’.
- 58.
Sniderman and Hagendoorn, When Ways of Life Collide; and Sides and Citrin, ‘European Opinion about Immigration’.
- 59.
Koning, ‘Selective Solidarity’.
- 60.
For overviews of this trend, see Joppke, ‘Immigrants and Civic Integration in Western Europe’; and Goodman, ‘Integration Requirements for Integration’s Sake?’ and Immigration and Membership Politics in Western Europe.
- 61.
Kymlicka, ‘Multiculturalism’. As Triadafilopoulos ‘Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends?’, puts it, these policies manifest a ‘Schmittian liberalism’.
- 62.
Interestingly, this effect is not found in Canada. See Breton, ‘Making National Identity Salient: Impact on Attitudes toward Immigration and Multiculturalism’.
- 63.
Goodman and Wright, ‘Does Mandatory Integration Matter?’; and Gundelach and Traunmüller, ‘Norms of Reciprocity as an Alternative Form of Social Capital in an Assimilationist Integration Regime’.
- 64.
This analysis is shared by both defenders of Canadian multiculturalism, such as myself and Varun Uberoi (‘Do Policies of Multiculturalism Change National Identities?’), and critics, such as Gerald Kernerman (Multicultural Nationalism) or Richard Day (Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity). They view the fusing of multiculturalism with nation-building as an abandonment of its emancipatory potential. I view it as enabling an ethos of social membership that affirms both diversity and solidarity.
- 65.
Levey, Political Theory and Australian Multiculturalism and ‘Diversity, Duality and Time’.
- 66.
Hussain and Miller, Multicultural Nationalism.
- 67.
For some speculations, see Kymlicka, Multicultural Odysseys.
- 68.
Vertovec, ‘Super-diversity and Its Implications’ and Super-diversity.
References
Ackerman, B., and A. Alstott. 1999. The Stakeholder Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ackerman, B., A. Alstott, and P. Van Parijs. 2006. Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism. London: Verso.
Alexander, J. 2014. Morality as a Cultural System: On Solidarity Civil and Uncivil. In Palgrave Handbook of Altruism, Morality and Social Solidarity, ed. V. Jeffries, 303–310. London: Palgrave.
Banting, K., and W. Kymlicka. 2006. Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banting, K. and W. Kymlicka. eds. 2017. Introduction: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies. In The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies, 1–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bauman, Z. 2013. A Word in Search of Flesh: Solidarity. New Eastern Europe 2 (7): 1–6.
Bayertz, K. 1998. Solidarity and the Welfare State: Some Introductory Considerations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1: 293–296.
Benhabib, S. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berman, S. 2006. The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady, D., and R. Finnigan. 2014. Does Immigration Undermine Public Support for Social Policy. American Sociological Review 79 (1): 17–42.
Breton, C. 2015. Making National Identity Salient: Impact on Attitudes toward Immigration and Multiculturalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 357–381.
Brooks, C., and J. Manza. 2007. Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, C. 2002. Imagining Solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, Constitutional Patriotism, and the Public Sphere. Public Culture 14 (1): 147–171.
Canovan, M. 1996. Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cardinal, L., and A.-A. Denault. 2007. Empowering Linguistic Minorities: Neo-liberal Governance and Language Policies in Canada and Wales. Regional & Federal Studies 17 (4): 437–456.
Cavaillé, C., and K.-S. Trump. 2015. The Two Facets of Social Policy Preferences. Journal of Politics 77 (1): 146–160.
Collier, P. 2013. Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, W. 2000. The Liberal Image of the Nation. In Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. D. Ivison, P. Patton, and W. Sanders, 183–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crepaz, M. 2006. If You Are My Brother, I May Give You a Dime! Public Opinion on Multiculturalism, Trust and the Welfare State. In Multiculturalism and the Welfare State, ed. K. Banting and W. Kymlicka, 92–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Day, R.J.F. 2000. Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1985. Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Evans, P., and W. Sewell. 2013. Neoliberalism: Policy Regimes, International Regimes, and Social Effects. In Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, ed. P.A. Hall and M. Lamont, 35–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gans, C. 2003. The Limits of Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, S. 2010. Integration Requirements for Integration’s Sake? Identifying, Categorizing and Comparing Civic Integration Policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36 (5): 753–772.
———. 2014. Immigration and Membership Politics in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, S., and M. Wright. 2015. Does Mandatory Integration Matter? Effects of Civic Requirements on Immigrant Socioeconomic and Political Outcomes. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (12): 1885–1908.
Greenfeld, L. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Guimond, S., R.J. Crisp, P. De Oliveira, R. Kamiejski, N. Kteily, B. Kuepper, et al. 2013. Diversity Policy, Social Dominance, and Intergroup Relations: Predicting Prejudice in Changing Social and Political Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104 (6): 941–958.
Gundelach, B., and R. Traunmüller. 2014. Norms of Reciprocity as an Alternative Form of Social Capital in an Assimilationist Integration Regime. Political Studies 62: 596–617.
Habermas, J. 2000. The Postnational Constellation and the Future of Democracy. In Postnational Constellation: Political Essays, 58–112. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hacker, J.S. 2011. The Institutional Foundations of Middle-class Democracy. Policy Network. Available at http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=3998&title=The+institutional+foundations+of+middle-class+democracy.
Hale, C.R. 2005. Neoliberal Multiculturalism: The Remaking of Cultural Rights and Racial Dominance in Central America. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 28 (1): 10–28.
Hussain, A., and W.L. Miller. 2006. Multicultural Nationalism: Islamophobia, Anglophobia, and Devolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackson, B. 2009. The Rhetoric of Redistribution. In Search of Social Democracy, ed. J. Callaghan, N. Fishman, B. Jackson, and M. McIvor, 233–251. London: Palgrave.
Joppke, C. 2007. Immigrants and Civic Integration in Western Europe. In Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, ed. K. Banting, T. Courchene, and L. Seidle, 321–350. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
Kernerman, G. 2005. Multicultural Nationalism: Civilizing Difference, Constituting Community. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Kesler, C., and I. Bloemraad. 2010. Does Immigration Erode Social Capital? The Conditional Effects of Immigration-Generated Diversity on Trust, Membership, and Participation across 19 Countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science 43 (2): 319–347.
Kochenov, D. 2015. Growing apart Together: Social Solidarity and Citizenship in Europe. In Research Handbook on European Social Security Law, ed. F. Pennings and G. Vonk, 32–52. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Koning, E.A. 2013. Selective Solidarity: The Politics of Immigrants’ Social Rights in Western Welfare States. Doctoral dissertation, Kingston: Queen’s University. Available at https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bitstream/1974/7922/1/Koning_Edward_A_201304_PhD.pdf.
Koopmans, R., I. Michalowski, and W. Strinnbe. 2012. Citizenship Rights for Immigrants: National Political Processes and Cross-National Convergence in Western Europe: 1980–2008. American Journal of Sociology 117 (4): 1202–1245.
Korpi, W. 1983. The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge.
Kumlin, S., and B. Rothstein. 2010. Questioning the New Liberal Dilemma: Immigrants, Social Networks and Institutional Fairness. Comparative Politics 43 (5): 63–80.
Kymlicka, W. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2007. Multicultural Odysseys. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2012. Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available at http:// www.migrationpolicy.org/research/TCM-multiculturalism-success-failure.
———. 2013. Neoliberal Multiculturalism? In Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, ed. P. Hall and M. Lamont, 99–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laitinen, A., and A.B. Pessi. eds. 2014. Solidarity: Theory and Practice, An Introduction. In Solidarity: Theory and Practice, 1–29. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Larsen, C.A. 2006. The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes: How Welfare Regimes Influence Public Support. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Levey, G.B. 2008. Political Theory and Australian Multiculturalism. New York: Berghahn.
———. 2016. Diversity, Duality and Time. In Multiculturalism and Interculturalism: Debating the Dividing Lines, ed. N. Meer, T. Modood, and R. Zapata-Barrero, 201–224. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Marshall, T.H. 1963. Sociology at the Crossroads. London: Heinemann.
McCall, L. 2013. The Undeserving Rich: American Beliefs About Inequality, Opportunity, and Redistribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCormick, N. 1999. Nations and Nationalism. In Theorizing Nationalism, ed. R. Beiner, 189–204. Albany: SUNY Press.
Menz, G. 2013. European Employers and the Rediscovery of Labour Migration. In Europe’s Immigration Challenge: Reconciling Work, Welfare and Mobility, ed. E. Jurado and G. Brochmann, 105–123. London: I.B. Tauris.
Miller, D. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, K. 2004. Crossing the Neoliberal Line: Pacific Rim Migration and the Metropolis. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Moore, M. 2001. The Ethics of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morel, N., B. Palier, and J. Palme. 2011. Beyond the Welfare State as We Knew It? In Towards a Social Investment Welfare State, ed. N. Morel, B. Palier, and J. Palme, 1–30. Bristol: Policy Press.
Nairn, T. 1977. The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism. London: New Left Books.
O’Neill, M., and T. Williamson. 2012. Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. London: Oxford University Press.
———. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reeskens, T., and W. Van Oorschot. 2012. Disentangling the ‘New Liberal Dilemma’: On the Relation between General Welfare Redistribution Preferences and Welfare Chauvinism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 53 (2): 120–139.
Reynolds, P. 2014. Introduction. In Cultural Difference and Social Solidarity: Solidarities and Social Function, ed. S. Boyd and W. Mary Ann, 1–12. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rothstein, B. 2017. Solidarity, Diversity and the Quality of Government. In The Strains of Commitment: The Political Sources of Solidarity in Diverse Societies, ed. K. Banting and W. Kymlicka, 300–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sager, A. 2016. Methodological Nationalism, Migration and Political Theory. Political Studies 64 (1): 42-59.
Sainsbury, D. 2012. Welfare States and Immigrant Rights: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schaeffer, M. 2014. Ethnic Diversity and Social Cohesion: Immigration, Ethnic Fractionalization and Potentials for Civic Action. Farnham: Ashgate.
Scholz, S.J. 2008. Political Solidarity. University Park: Penn State University Press.
Sides, J., and J. Citrin. 2007. European Opinion About Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information. British Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 477–504.
Sniderman, P., and L. Hagendoorn. 2007. When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stephens, J. 1979. The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. London: Macmillan.
Stichnoth, H., and K. Van der Straeten. 2013. Ethnic Diversity, Public Spending, and Individual Support for the Welfare State: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal of Economic Surveys 27 (2): 364–389.
Stjernø, S. 2004. Solidarity in Europe: The History of an Idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stolle, D., and A. Harell. 2015. The Consequences of Ethnic Diversity: Advancing the Debate. In Social Cohesion and Immigration in Europe and North America: Mechanisms, Conditions, and Causality, ed. R. Koopmans, B. Lancee, and M. Schaeffer, 105–122. London: Routledge.
Swank, D., and H.-G. Betz. 2003. Globalization, the Welfare State and Right-wing Populism in Western Europe. Socio-Economic Review 1 (2): 215–245.
Tamir, Y. 1993. Liberal Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thelen, K. 2014. Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Triadafilopoulos, P. 2011. Illiberal Means to Liberal Ends? Understanding Recent Immigrant Integration Policies in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37 (6): 861–880.
Uberoi, V. 2008. Do Policies of Multiculturalism Change National Identities? Political Quarterly 79: 404–417.
Van der Meer, T., and J. Tolsma. 2014. Ethnic Diversity and Its Supposed Detrimental Effects on Social Cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology 40: 459–478.
Van der Waal, J., W. De Koster, and W. Van Oorschot. 2013. Three Worlds of Welfare Chauvinism? How Welfare Regimes Affect Support for Distributing Welfare to Immigrants in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 15 (2): 164–181.
Van Oorschot, W. 2000. Who Should Get What and Why. Policy and Politics 28 (1): 33–49.
———. 2005. Immigrants, Welfare and Deservingness: Opinions in European Welfare States. Aalborg: Institut for Okonomi, Politik og Forvaltning, Aalborg University.
———. 2006. Making the Difference in Social Europe: Deservingness Perceptions among Citizens of European Welfare States. Journal of European Social Policy 16 (1): 23–42.
Vertovec, S. 2007. Super-diversity and Its Implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 29 (6): 1024–1054.
———. 2016. Super-diversity. London: Routledge.
Wilde, L. 2007. The Concept of Solidarity: Emerging from the Theoretical Shadows. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (1): 171–181.
Žižek, S. 1997. Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism. New Left Review 225: 28–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kymlicka, W. (2020). Solidarity in Diverse Societies: Beyond Neoliberal Multiculturalism and Welfare Chauvinism. In: Kaul, V., Vajpeyi, A. (eds) Minorities and Populism – Critical Perspectives from South Asia and Europe. Philosophy and Politics - Critical Explorations, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34098-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34098-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34097-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34098-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)