Zapata-Barrero Ricard
GRITIM-UPF (Interdisciplinary Research Group on Immigration), Department of Social and Political Science, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Catalonia Spain.
Comp Migr Stud. 2017;5(1):14. doi: 10.1186/s40878-017-0057-z. Epub 2017 Sep 4.
The main purpose of this article is to formulate a defence of the emerging intercultural policy paradigm for the benefit of those who are still somewhat reluctant to accept its proper place within the current migration-related diversity policy debate. My defence will take two main lines of argumentation: Firstly, I will state that the increasing intensity of the intercultural policy paradigm must be placed in the present-day post-multicultural period, which recognizes the strengths of the multicultural policy paradigm but also the limits to its process for recognizing differences. The role played by the emerging national civic policy paradigm (a renovated version of assimilation), prioritizing duties before rights, will also be considered crucial to better contextualize interculturalism. Secondly, I will try to identify the main distinctive features of interculturalism, which legitimize its proper place within the diversity debate today. Without rejecting rights-based and duties-based policy approaches, interculturalism places more emphasis on a contacts-based policy approach, aimed at fostering communication and relationships among people from different backgrounds, including national citizens. This approach focuses on common bonds rather than differences. It also views diversity as an advantage and a resource, and centres its policy goals on community cohesion and reframing a common public culture that places diversity within rather than outside the so-called Unity. In reviewing the current literature and the origins of the intercultural policy paradigm, I restate its contribution towards resolving current trends in transnationalism, changing identities, superdiversity and the rise of populist anti-immigrant parties. These are issues the old multicultural project has struggled to deal with, which has provoked the current disillusionment. Lastly, I will propose a research avenue to further consolidate interculturalism as a distinctive and legitimate policy approach.
本文的主要目的是为新兴的跨文化政策范式进行辩护，以惠及那些仍有些不太愿意接受其在当前与移民相关的多样性政策辩论中应有地位的人。我的辩护将采用两条主要论证思路：首先，我将指出，跨文化政策范式日益增强的影响力必须置于当今的后多元文化时期来考量，这个时期既认识到多元文化政策范式的优势，也认识到其在承认差异过程中的局限性。新兴的国家公民政策范式（同化的改良版本）所发挥的作用，即在权利之前优先考虑义务，对于更好地理解跨文化主义的背景也至关重要。其次，我将试图确定跨文化主义的主要显著特征，这些特征使其在当今的多样性辩论中占据合理地位。跨文化主义并不排斥基于权利和基于义务的政策方法，而是更强调基于接触的政策方法，旨在促进不同背景的人之间的交流和关系，包括本国公民。这种方法注重共同纽带而非差异。它还将多样性视为一种优势和资源，并将其政策目标集中于社区凝聚力以及重塑一种将多样性置于所谓“统一”之内而非之外的共同公共文化。在回顾当前文献和跨文化政策范式的起源时，我重申了它对解决跨国主义、身份变化、超级多样性以及民粹主义反移民政党崛起等当前趋势所做的贡献。这些都是旧的多元文化项目难以应对的问题，引发了当前的幻灭情绪。最后，我将提出一条研究途径，以进一步巩固跨文化主义作为一种独特且合理的政策方法的地位。
