Ralph Grillo

Some of the most horrifying episodes of ethnic violence of the twentieth century occurred in a territory originally part of the Ottoman Empire. Although for later generations the Empire was a byword for ramshackle, corrupt organization, and by the nineteenth century this was probably correct, in its heyday, in the 150 years or so from the fall of Constantinople in 1453, many regarded it as a symbol of harmony, and indeed for Jews fleeing persecution in Spain it offered a safe haven. During that period the Empire incorporated ethnic and religious differences into its system of rule in ways that gave formally subordinate groups relative autonomy in their cultural, religious, economic, and political affairs (the millet system), and allowed some of their members to rise to positions of great power and eminence, e.g. the slave elite created by the devshirme.

In Britain and other countries with similar patterns of ethnic and cultural diversity, policy in the 1980s and 1990s stood within the messy middle of the spectrum from assimilation to separatism. British policy may have favoured what was called ‘integration’, but how much diversity, of what kind, and on what basis were still open questions. In Britain and elsewhere there were three emergent modes of cultural pluralism: ‘multiculturalism’, ‘institutional pluralism’ (or more simply ‘separatism’), and ‘hybridity’. In the 1990s, multicultural policies, which had supporters and critics from all parts of the political spectrum, were severely tested by demands by some Muslims for greater recognition of their claims for space in the public arena, and by events such as the ‘Rushdie Affair’, which posed the question of what room should contemporary societies allow for being French or British or American ‘differently’?

This is a somewhat revised version of a talk that was originally presented in Berlin in April 2015 as a ‘Masterclass’ at the ‘Academy of Urban Super-Diversity’, organised by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity (based at Göttingen), under the direction of Prof. Steve Vertovec. For the purposes of participants, speakers were asked to suggest a short list of articles and books which those attending might read beforehand. My list included a number of venerable items, one of which (Louis Wirth’s) was originally published some 80 years previously (1938). I proposed such texts (along with much more recent references) because it is important to grasp the long-term trajectory of work in the broad field of urban diversity, and also understand how to read these older writers, who still have something to tell us. The original title of the presentation was ‘Super-Diversity Through the Lens of Anthropology’, but I have devised a slightly different title for this version: ‘Reflections on Super-Diversity by an Urban Anthropologist, or “Superdiversity So What?”’ I should add that it is largely concerned with developments in Europe, and principally the UK. The talk was followed by a period of lively discussion in small groups and a concluding plenary session. I very much enjoyed the Berlin Academy, and felt honoured to be part of it, gaining a lot from interacting with the students and the other ‘masters’.

On 15 June 2015, the publishers, Ashgate, in conjunction with the Centre for Culture and Law, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London (GLOCUL ) arranged a seminar to ‘launch’ the publication of my book Muslim Families, Politics and the Law: A Legal Industry in Multicultural Britain (Grillo 2015; see also http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781472451217). I am very grateful to GLOCUL for hosting the event, and its Director, Dr. Prakash Shah, for organising it. A panel of four speakers kindly agreed to discuss the book, and am equally grateful for their participation and comments, which were rich in detail and thought-provoking. They were Werner Menski, Emeritus Professor, School of Law, SOAS Dr Federica Sona, Teaching Fellow, SOAS Islam Uddin, Imam and Lecturer in Islamic Studies Khola Hassan, Writer, Broadcaster, Public Speaker and Consultant on Muslim Women’s Issues The paper is a slightly revised and extended text of my own presentation which explains the background to the book and sketches some of the findings.

This is a slightly amended version of a paper which was previously published as a Working Paper by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity (MMG-MPG) in Göttingen in 2010. It had previously been presented to a workshop on ‘Understanding Diversity’ at the Institute in October 2009, and to seminars at London Metropolitan University and the University of Nottingham.[1] Here and there I have made some small changes in phrasing, and noted a few additional references. Otherwise the text remains very largely as originally published. It has also been reproduced as Chapter 12 of a book (Living with Difference Essays on Transnationalism and Multiculturalism) which I published as a Kindle book in March 2015. Readers who are interested might like to buy a copy of the book, available from http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Difference-Essays-Transnationalism-Multiculturalism-ebook/dp/B00R487WB6/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1442829655&sr=1-1, price £3.84) In brief, the chapter contends that diversity, or rather the process of diversification, in a multicultural society such as Britain, involves interaction between hegemonic and minority (alternative) ‘regimes’, which specify and embody the principles underlying the arrangement of diverse populations, their configuration. Regimes entail moral orders, sets of beliefs and values that provide guidelines (or imperatives) for right and proper conduct within and between diverse populations, and in a globalising world these come under pressure, not least in a migratory context, which is a catalyst for changing perceptions of self, forcing (re)interpretation of beliefs and practices. The family is one ‘site’ where matters may come to a head, and differences between regimes and moral orders are explored and contested. The way in which regimes are ‘interarticulated’ is crucial. In Britain this involves a complex process of contestation and negotiation between proponents of different perspectives. British multiculturalism, one mode of dealing with diversity, is thus best interpreted as an emergent ‘negotiated order’, the result of interaction between a multiplicity of social actors that reflects the rapport de force (local, national, international) in contemporary society. The original paper is available for download from http://www.mmg.mpg.de/publications/working-papers/2010/wp-10-02. Keywords: Europe, diversity, multiculturalism, governance, sites of contestation, Islam, Muslim families, moral orders, negotiated order

This paper is a DRAFT, stand-alone essay intended ultimately to be part of a series of essays exploring various aspects of ‘intercultural dialogue’, ‘intercultural knowledge’, and ‘interculturalism’. It follows on from a similar paper (A Year of Living Interculturally: The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, 2008, Grillo 2016), previously uploaded to Academia.edu and Researchgate ; other bits and pieces exist in draft form, but have not so far been put into the public domain. The present paper takes up some of the themes addressed in the earlier essay, notably what appeared to be considerable confusion in the European Union (EU), the European Commission, and the Council of Europe (CoE), about the meaning and significance of ‘interculturalism’, and whether intercultural ‘actions’, as European jargon has it, amounted to much more than ‘Words, Words, Words’. Here, as the paper’s title indicates, I am concerned mostly with the former question: precisely (if that is possible) what IS interculturalism? Disputes about the meaning of interculturalism, and whether it is an alternative to ‘multiculturalism’, and if so in what ways, have attracted much attention in recent years, especially among academics (notably political scientists and philosophers), but also, to a more limited extent, among policy makers and politicians in Europe (in the EU and CoE), and in Canada; they have not to any great extent engaged the attention of a wider public outside those bubbles, at least in Europe. The paper explores these disputes over seven parts. Part 1, the Introduction, briefly establishes some general points about the nature of the debate. Part 2 notes some of the factors that have led to the emergence of the concept of interculturalism in the contemporary context, principally amid critiques of previously prevailing policies of multiculturalism. Part 3 makes a link with the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and examines the arguments about interculturalism and multiculturalism in the European context. Part 4 then looks at interculturalism as practiced in two initiatives – the Intercultural Cities project and the Baring Foundation’s programme of Awards for Bridging Cultures in the UK. Part 5 returns to the academic debate and explores the views of the two schools of thought, or camps, if you will, multiculturalists and interculturalists, principally though not exclusively through their reflections on the governance of diversity in Europe and Canada. Part 6 follows with a closer look at some specific controversies and puzzles including the history of the intercultural idea, the view that the current context of globalisation, transnationalism and superdiversity means that interculturalism comes into its own, and what the two camps think about individuals and collectivities A concluding section reflects briefly on what emerges from what is a confusing debate. As the present paper is a stand-alone essay, it repeats some of the material and arguments that appear in A Year of Living Interculturally. Such overlap will be eliminated if the two essays are ever brought together in a single publication. Meantime, I welcome thoughts, comments, corrections of fact, and, although the paper is already far too long (and long-winded) suggestions for further reading and additional references which ought to be cited.

This draft paper on the European Union’s ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ (2008) and other related programmes by the EU and the Council of Europe (CoE) is intended eventually as a chapter in a longer study (perhaps a book) on intercultural knowledge, intercultural dialogue, and interculturalism, others bits of which also exist in draft form. Here I review what ‘intercultural dialogue’ meant to the EU and the CoE, why they thought it necessary to engage with intercultural dialogue, what they hoped to achieve through such engagement, and how they set about implementing dialogue through various initiatives (‘actions’) mainly in the period since the turn of the 21st century. It also asks whether the end result was any more than ‘Words, Words, Words’. There is a large academic and other literature on the EU and the CoE which directly or indirectly relates to the subject matter of this paper. While noting its relevance where necessary and helpful (for example as part of the background and context), the paper is not intended primarily as a contribution to the study of European institutions. My main concern is with intercultural dialogue and with what those institutions said and did about it, and where and how that fits into more general theoretical and empirical concerns about interculturalism. I welcome thoughts, comments, corrections of fact, and, although the paper is already far too long, suggestions for further reading and additional references which ought to be cited.  

In the last fifteen years, interculturalism has received a great deal of attention from academics and policy makers in Europe and North America, notably in respect of contemporary debates about multiculturalism. Among other things, 2008 was declared the ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ by the European Union (EU), and in the same year the Bouchard-Taylor Report (Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation) was a powerful advocate for a policy of interculturalism in Québec. Interculturalism and intercultural dialogue are, however, concepts that require a great deal of deconstruction. Moreover, despite the high hopes and expectations that its advocates have for it, interculturalism, or more specifically intercultural dialogue, is no ‘magic bullet’, nor is it an easy option, procedurally or politically. The book therefore examines what both ‘intercultural’ and ‘dialogue’ mean, and what problems are encountered when seeking to actualise the practice of intercultural dialogue as a means of addressing our contemporary ‘crisis of difference’. The particular focus is on dialogues in multi-cultural, multilingual, multi-ethnic societies when they are concerned with addressing cultural and religious difference; i.e. where they are dialogues about cultural beliefs and practices, and where ‘intercultural knowledge’, and ‘intercultural negotiations’ are involved. As the its title indicates, the book’s primary concern is with such dialogues as social or specifically political phenomena in which power relations are fully engaged. That in turn means taking into account the social and political context of such dialogues. The contemporary post-colonial, globalised, transnational, neo-liberal world shapes both the sites within which intercultural dialogues take place, and the contemporary debate on interculturalism itself. In addressing the ‘crisis of difference’ in our contemporary societies intercultural dialogue has a crucial role. But if it is to be more than a passing encounter, it must involve deep knowledge, understanding, and recognition of the Other’s culture, and a willingness to negotiate. The knowledge and understanding that are believed to be authoritative, and by whom, is decisive, as is the ability to define the task in which the parties to a dialogue are engaged. Who is deemed to have the power or authority to say what, to whom, and when, whose voices are included in, or excluded from, dialogue, and what space is made available for alternative perspectives or counter-narratives which challenge dominant ones, are clearly crucial questions. In addressing such questions, neither multiculturalists nor interculturalists have a unique command of the truth; both approaches have a role to play in the governance of diversity, and in practice (if not always in theory) they are not incompatible. That conclusion is very much in the spirit of Bhikhu Parekh’s ‘dialogical multiculturalism’, as indeed of the kind of interculturalism advocated by the Bouchard-Taylor Report in Canada. Interculturalism and the Politics of Dialogue is in three parts (see chapter headings below). Part I is by and large theoretical, investigating the debate between multiculturalists and interculturalists, and the so-called ‘intercultural turn’, but also exploring the relevance of the idea of ‘transculturality’ or ‘transculturalism’. Parts II and III consider what actually happens, on the ground, the practice of intercultural dialogue. Part II (an ‘Intermission’) is concerned with Europe and its institutions and has two case studies on interculturalism in both theory and practice. Chapter 8 deals principally with the EU’s so-called ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ which took place in 2008. The Council of Europe was also heavily involved with that, and in another project, the Intercultural Cities Programme. That is the subject of Chapter 9, which assess what interculturalism and intercultural dialogue mean for the urban centres associated with the Programme. Part III, Chapters 10-16, then has a series of other shorter or longer case studies, investigated from both practical and theoretical perspectives, which explore what interculturalism, and again principally intercultural dialogue, has meant in different contexts and at different times. Chapter 17 sums things up.

The official review of research carried out in British universities in 2014 required departments to present case studies documenting the "impact" ("reach and significance") of their research beyond the academy. Despite misgivings, anthropology departments presented detailed studies across a range of sub-fields of the discipline which were judged to have demonstrated "productive engagement with publics, users and policy makers". Some of the studies illustrated a contribution to one field, what Bourdieu called the "judicial field", which has become increasingly significant for anthropologists across Europe and North America, especially where ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are concerned. The paper examines a number of situations of this kind (including interventions in tribunals assessing the claims of asylum seekers) where anthropologists acting as cultural interpreters or mediators have had to interact with the law and with lawyers a...

Current Anthropology Volume 31, Number 3, June 1990 © 1990 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved ооп-3204/9о/зюз-ооо1$2.50 Anthropological Advocacy A Contradiction in Terms? by Kirsten Hastrup and Peter Elsass This paper is an ...

This book focuses principally on Muslim families and on the way in which gender relations and associated questions of (women's) agency, consent and autonomy, have become the focus of political and social commentary, with followers of the religion under constant public scrutiny and criticism. Practices concerning marriage and divorce are especially controversial and the book includes a detailed overview of the public debate about the application of Islamic legal and ethical norms (shari'a) in family law matters, and the associated role of Shari'a councils, in a British context. In short, Islam generally and the Muslim family in particular have become highly politicized sites of contestation, and the book considers how and why and with what implications for British multiculturalism, past, present and future. The study will be of great interest to international scholars and academics researching the governance of diversity and the accommodation of other faiths including Isl...

... EXPLORATIONS IN ANTHROPOLOGY A University College London Series Series Editors: Barbara Bender, John Gledhill and Bruce Kapferer ... Georgia Kaufmann 107 6 Mixed Messages: Contested'Development'and the 'Plantation Rehabilitation Project' Katy Gardner 133 7 ...

Engaging with Diversity: Interview Transcript, Ralph Grillo, University of Sussex, March 2021

What follows is a transcript of an interview which was recorded in April 2009 during a research conference on diversity organised by Prof. Steven Vertovec of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, based at Göttingen. The interview was conducted by Christiane (Chris) Kofri, staff member and currently the Institute’s Publications and Social Media Manager. Many thanks to Chris who was also responsible for preparing a transcript of the recording; the original transcript is available at https://www.mmg.mpg.de/53161/interview-with-ralph-grillo.

The interview was one of a number with researchers who have been engaged with issues of concern to the Institute, notably around the concept of superdiversity (the full list of interviewees may be found on the Institute’s website at https://www.mmg.mpg.de/diversity-interviews). My own interview with Chris Kofri explored the various ways I was then approaching the subject of superdiversity, which I developed further in later research and writing. I was particularly concerned with the factors which affect the process of “diversification”, and the consequence for the form that diversity subsequently takes in various contexts. At the same time I was beginning to think about current debates concerning the role of multiculturalism as a policy for addressing contemporary diversity, and the idea of interculturalism which was being proposed as an alternative approach.

These and other topics were eventually addressed in various books and articles some of which are listed below. They include:

Grillo, R. (2010) ‘Contesting Diversity in Europe: Alternative Regimes and Moral Orders’, MMG Working Paper 10-02, Göttingen: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity.
Grillo, R. (2015) ‘Reflections on Super-Diversity by an Urban Anthropologist, or “Superdiversity So What?”‘, available at https://www.academia.edu/12392425/_Reflections_on_Super-Diversity_by_an_Urban_Anthropologist_or_Superdiversity_So_What_
Grillo, R. (2018), ‘British Multiculturalism: From “Parekh” to “PREVENT”, and Beyond’, in K. Alidadi & M.-C. Foblets (eds.) Public Commissions on Cultural and Religious Diversity: National Narratives, Multiple Identities and Minorities, 86-110. London: Routledge.
Grillo, R. (2018) Interculturalism and the Politics of Dialogue, Lewes: B and RG Books of Lewes.
Grillo, R. (2018) Transnational Migration and Multiculturalism: Living With Difference in a Globalised World, Lewes: B and RG Books of Lewes.

Paperback copies of Interculturalism and the Politics of Dialogue, and Transnational Migration and Multiculturalism may be purchased from Amazon, but .pdf versions of the texts are also freely available on Academia.edu and Researchgate.net.

... La fórmula Jenkins preveu per als immigrants i la següent generació (que al Regne Unit esdevenen "minories ... no és la integració, sinó "com restar en contacte amb la seva Sri Lankad'origen" (pàg. ... Flugerud cita un jove tàmil que es va criar a Noruega i afirmava "si pogués triar ...

... Critical Social Policy , vol. ... asylum-seekers would be allowed into the hotel “over my dead body”', adding: 'We have never and we will never take asylum-seekers. ... Saltdean did not have the resources to cope with an influx of refugees and also feared a rise in crime … Des Turner ...

... A trade union aristocracy: A history of white workers in the Transvaal and the general strike of 1913. Post a Comment. CONTRIBUTORS: Author: Katz, Elaine N. PUBLISHER: African Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand (Johannesburg). SERIES TITLE: YEAR: 1976. ...

This volume explores the lives and activities of people of African descent in Europe between the 1880s and the beginning of the twenty-first century. It goes beyond the still-dominant Anglo-American or transatlantic focus of diaspora studies to examine the experiences of black and white Africans, Afro-Caribbeans and African Americans who settled or travelled in Germany, France, Portugal, Italy and the Soviet Union, as well as in Britain. At the same time, while studies of Africans in Europe have tended to focus on the relationship between colonial (or former colonial) subjects and their respective metropolitan nation states, the essays in this volume widen the lens to consider the skills, practices and negotiations called for by other kinds of border-crossing: The subjects of these essays include people moving between European states and state jurisdictions or from the former colony of one state to another place in Europe, African-born colonial settlers returning to the metropolis, migrants conversing across ethnic and cultural boundaries among ‘Africans’, and visitors for whom the face-to-face encounter with European society involves working across the ‘colour line’ and testing the limits of solidarity. Case studies of family life, community-building and politics and cultural production, drawing on original research, illuminate the transformative impact of those journeys and encounters and the forms of ‘transnational practice’ that they have generated. The contributors include specialist scholars in social history, art history, anthropology, cultural studies and literature, as well as a novelist and a filmmaker who reflect on their own experiences of these complex histories and the challenges of narrating them.

This is a DRAFT, stand-alone essay, ultimately intended to be included in a series of such essays exploring various aspects of ‘interculturalism’, ‘intercultural dialogue’, and ‘intercultural knowledge’. It follows on from two papers (A Year of Living Interculturally: The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, 2008, and But What IS Interculturalism? - respectively Grillo 2016a, 2016b), now uploaded to Academia.edu and Researchgate.net.  Other bits and pieces have previously existed in unpublished drafts, and this essay draws on some of these. A proposed future publication (entitled Case Studies in Intercultural Dialogue) will analyse a series of situations involving dialoguing about culture and cultural differences in various contexts.

The aims of the present paper are two-fold. First, it addresses some of the issues touched on in the earlier essays concerning dialogue, specifically intercultural dialogue. Interculturalism has been advocated by academics, policy-makers and practitioners in Europe and Canada as an alternative strategy for coping with ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in the light of what are often believed to be the failures of multiculturalism. Intercultural dialogue is generally considered to be an integral component of that alternative strategy. Secondly, beyond that specific context, the essay attempts to engage more generally (and comparatively) with the theory and practice of intercultural dialogue, including whether such dialogue is possible (in multiple senses), and if so under what conditions.

The essay arises out of a long-term concern, dating back originally to the early 1980s, which slowly became more focused in the late 1990s and early 2000s in a project I now call ‘Interculturalism and the Politics of Dialogue’ – my engagement with the debate about interculturalism in Europe and Canada represented something of a necessary detour within that project. As the project’s title suggest, my interest is primarily in dialogue as a social, and specifically a political phenomenon, rather than a cognitive or communicative or linguistic one. Nonetheless I recognise the fundamental importance of the linguistic, communicative and cognitive aspects and their implications for social and political action.

The essay is in five parts. Part 1 summarises the numerous starting points for my personal interest in intercultural dialogue (I keep discovering more), and sets out the contemporary social and political background. Parts 2, 3 and 4 focus on the scope of intercultural dialogue, on how intercultural and dialogue are understood, on what is expected of such dialogue, for example on the part of commissioners of the European Union or academic advocates, and on the problems dialogue poses, theoretically and practically. Part 5 offers some concluding observations.

The present essay repeats some of the material and arguments that appear in A Year of Living Interculturally and But What IS Interculturalism? Such overlap will be eliminated if or when the three (or eventually four) essays are ever brought together in a single publication. Meantime, I welcome thoughts, comments, corrections of fact, and, although the paper is already far too long (and long-winded), suggestions for further reading and additional references which ought to be consulted.
 

This paper is a DRAFT, stand-alone essay intended ultimately to be part of a series of essays exploring various aspects of ‘intercultural dialogue’, ‘intercultural knowledge’, and ‘interculturalism’. It follows on from a similar paper (A Year of Living Interculturally: The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, 2008, Grillo 2016), previously uploaded to Academia.edu and Researchgate ; other bits and pieces exist in draft form, but have not so far been put into the public domain. The present paper takes up some of the themes addressed in the earlier essay, notably what appeared to be considerable confusion in the European Union (EU), the European Commission, and the Council of Europe (CoE), about the meaning and significance of ‘interculturalism’, and whether intercultural ‘actions’, as European jargon has it, amounted to much more than ‘Words, Words, Words’. Here, as the paper’s title indicates, I am concerned mostly with the former question: precisely (if that is possible) what IS interculturalism?

Disputes about the meaning of interculturalism, and whether it is an alternative to ‘multiculturalism’, and if so in what ways, have attracted much attention in recent years, especially among academics (notably political scientists and philosophers), but also, to a more limited extent, among policy makers and politicians in Europe (in the EU and CoE), and in Canada; they have not to any great extent engaged the attention of a wider public outside those bubbles, at least in Europe. The paper explores these disputes over seven parts. Part 1, the Introduction, briefly establishes some general points about the nature of the debate. Part 2 notes some of the factors that have led to the emergence of the concept of interculturalism in the contemporary context, principally amid critiques of previously prevailing policies of multiculturalism. Part 3 makes a link with the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and examines the arguments about interculturalism and multiculturalism in the European context. Part 4 then looks at interculturalism as practiced in two initiatives – the Intercultural Cities project and the Baring Foundation’s programme of Awards for Bridging Cultures in the UK. Part 5 returns to the academic debate and explores the views of the two schools of thought, or camps, if you will, multiculturalists and interculturalists, principally though not exclusively through their reflections on the governance of diversity in Europe and Canada. Part 6 follows with a closer look at some specific controversies and puzzles including the history of the intercultural idea, the view that the current context of globalisation, transnationalism and superdiversity means that interculturalism comes into its own, and what the two camps think about individuals and collectivities A concluding section reflects briefly on what emerges from what is a confusing debate.

As the present paper is a stand-alone essay, it repeats some of the material and arguments that appear in A Year of Living Interculturally. Such overlap will be eliminated if the two essays are ever brought together in a single publication. Meantime, I welcome thoughts, comments, corrections of fact, and, although the paper is already far too long (and long-winded) suggestions for further reading and additional references which ought to be cited.

Abstract:

Commissions, Inquiries, Reports, Consultations and Other Interventions on Ethnic and Religious Minorities in Britain, c. 1900-end 2016.  Draft December 2016


Ralph Grillo, University of Sussex, email: [email protected].

This draft  article represents an attempt to list and very briefly analyse some of the large number of interventions in public debates about ethnic and religious minorities in Britain over the last 100 years or so. It has been prepared in connection with a paper (‘British Multiculturalism: From “Parekh” to “PREVENT”, and Beyond’) first presented at a conference at the Law and Anthropology Department of the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany, in June 2015, and revised for inclusion in a volume to be edited by Marie-Claire Foblets and Katayoun Alidadi entitled Ethnic, Religious, and Cultural Diversity in Four National Contexts: The Role of Expert Commissions ,which it is hoped will appear in 2017.

My own contribution to the conference began as a reflection on the legacy of the Parekh Report (The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. London: Runnymede Trust/Profile, 2000), which is also discussed by others in the volume (along with chapters on similar commissions in Belgium, Canada and France). In preparing my paper I concluded that Parekh (referring to the report, not its chairperson, Lord Bhikhu Parekh) should not be treated in isolation. It was but one of many reports, consultations and commissions of inquiry that have sought to pronounce on the situation of ethnic and religious minorities in Britain over the last 50 years, and increasingly in the last 20. There were, of course, much earlier interventions – notably the 1903 Royal Commission on Alien Immigration (Report of the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, British Parliamentary Papers IX, HMSO), which led to the 1905 Aliens Act, the first major legislation controlling immigration into the UK. But from Roy Jenkins’ Essays and Speeches in 1967 to the British Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy and the CORAB Report (Living With Difference: Community, Diversity and the Common Good), both in 2015, there have been many hundreds of  interventions by various ministries (Home Office, Education, ‘Communities’ etc), non-departmental public bodies, and NGOs pronouncing directly or indirectly on diversity and its governance; and this does not include a huge number of academic books and papers, media articles, TV programmes, novels, plays and films.

There were obviously far too many to cite in the paper which among other things attempted to situate Parekh in relation to this plethora of interventions, and tease out the various changing themes which have been addressed. Nonetheless, I felt that it might be useful to have some of  the references available for readers of the volume and any others who might be interested, and so I indicated  that I would provide a link  (in a footnote in the edited volume) to a table which I proposed to upload on the Internet to sites such as https://www.academia.edu and https://www.researchgate.net. This is the result.