Liberalism and racism: an ‘elective affinity’?

This appraisal of David Scott FitzGerald and David Cook-Martín's Culling the Masses: The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in the Americas argues that there is no ‘elective affinity’ between liberalism and racism, which is the core argument of the book. The notion of ‘elective affinity’, which the authors borrow from Max Weber, requires a structural homology between the ‘electively’ related elements that just does not exist in this case. The relationship between both is entirely contingent, ‘racism’ being a doctrine of inter-group relations while ‘liberalism��� is a doctrine of intra-group relations, with no consideration of how the boundaries of the group are constituted.

A Christian Identity for the Liberal State?

It seems to be impossible for the liberal state to embrace a Christian identity, because ‘liberalism��� is exactly a device for separating state and religion. Discussing the implications of a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Lautsi v. Italy (2011), I argue that this is not necessarily so. If paired with a liberal commitment to pluralism, a Christian identity might even be more inclusive of minority religions than a narrowly ‘liberal’ state identity, which has been the dominant response in Western Europe to the challenge of immigrant diversity, especially that of Muslim origins.

Islam and the Legal Enforcement of Morality

Over sixty years ago, British high court judge Patrick Devlin and legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart fought out a famous debate over the legal enforcement of morality, which was generated by the question whether homosexuality should be legalized or not. Jurists agree that this debate was won by Hart, also evidenced in the fact that the state has since been retreating from its previous role of moral watchdog. I argue in this paper that the two most conflicted and essentially unresolved issues in the integration of Islam, the regulation of the female body and of free speech, have reopened this debate anew, pushing the liberal state toward the legal regulation of morality, thus potentially putting at risk its liberalness. I use the Hart-Devlin debate as a template for comparing and contrasting the Muslim quest for restricting free speech with the host-society quest for restricting the Islamic veil. Accordingly, there is a double threat to liberalism, which this paper brings into view in tandem, one originating from Islam and another from a hypertrophied defense of liberalism.

European Immigrant Integration after Multiculturalism

This paper takes the recent abdication of multiculturalism by the leaders of Europe’s most powerful nations (Germany, France, and Britain) as hub for a reflection on common themes in Europe’s crisis of multiculturalism. The most obvious common theme in this crisis is Islam and problems of Muslim integration. Accordingly, this paper addresses the role of religion and Islam in Europe’s multiculturalism crisis, and elaborates on the “muscular liberalism��� or “civic integration” policies that have appeared in lieu of a discarded multiculturalism. In a final step, I tackle, in a forward-looking mode, some “critical issues” that will shape European immigrant integration after multiculturalism: the need to fight discrimination despite multiculturalism’s ebb, a greater concern for majority culture, the importance of robust debate and democracy as medium of integration, the often-neglected factor of immigrant selection, and a recognition that institutions matter more than policy in the process of integration.