“Brexit and the Remaking of British National Identity,” (with Mark Bevir), British Politics, 16(2), 117-132 (2021)

In this paper we analyze Brexit in relation to changes in British national identity since World War II. We begin by analyzing how the concept of “tradition” relates to “nation”, and then examine current discourses surrounding Brexit and national identity. We trace the ways in which British national identity has been renegotiated since World War II through contests over nationality, citizenship, cultural diversity, and Europe. Finally, we ask why British political actors have struggled to negotiate the dilemmas of post-Imperial British identity, and what lessons can be learned. We look at changing coalitions within British political parties, which we connect to philosophical tensions in their underlying intellectual traditions, and to changes brought about by globalization. We conclude that Brexit and the broader crisis of liberal democracy of which it is a part have deep historical and philosophical roots, and that attempts to unite our policy through a single national identity will be unsuccessful.

“What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?” (co-author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth: Comparative Perspectives on Theory and Practice, The University of California Press (2019).

This chapter sketches the different issues that may be characterized as “multicultural,” noting how the scope of the term varies between different contexts and straddles both theory and practice. By situating modern multiculturalism in its national, international and historical contexts I demonstrate that the Commonwealth is crucial for its study, as it facilitates fruitful comparison across national, historical and disciplinary boundaries. I trace the connection between contemporary debates and the period of decolonization and globalization following World War II, which itself has its roots in the interrelated rise of nation, state and empire in the early modern period.

“Multiculturalism in Britain after World War II: Immigration, Nationality and Empire” (co- author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth: Comparative Perspectives on Theory and Practice, The University of California Press (2019).

The central dilemma facing postwar Britain was how to understand its role in the world, and the idea of Britishness itself, in a non-imperial context. I show that this dilemma led to a radical overhaul of the law relating to nationality, citizenship and immigration, which in turn conditioned the particular form modern multiculturalism has taken in the UK. This chapter outlines the central features of the relevant policy and law, tracing the development of a distinctive form of “British multiculturalism,” which combines tough immigration controls with an internal regime of citizenship rights, race relations legislation and pluralistic accommodations for minorities. This framework of law and policy has persisted in its broad outlines from the mid-1960s until the present, but since the turn of the millennium there has been a reaction against some of the more pluralistic aspects of it. I conclude that Brexit and renewed calls for Scottish independence are entangled with current disagreements over multiculturalism, which in turn highlights that postwar cultural diversity calls into question the basic structure and purpose of the British polity.

“Comparative Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Multiculturalism: Lessons from the Commonwealth” (co-author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth: Comparative Perspectives on Theory and Practice, The University of California Press (2019).

This chapter explores the implications of the volume for the theory and practice of multiculturalism. Here I identify the dominant approaches to accommodating cultural diversity in theory and in practice, and sketch how a study of the postwar Commonwealth highlights their potential weaknesses and strengths. I provide a series of concrete comparisons drawn from the different national cases, placing particular emphasis on the importance of colonial modes of governance—including racialized forms of political economy and decentralized political structures—for understanding contemporary debates over multiculturalism in both the “New” and “Old” Commonwealth. I show that the historical cases provide empirical support to the philosophical claim that cultures are socially constructed, and thereby undercut prominent forms of multicultural theory and practice. Comparison of different forms of postwar multiculturalism also suggests that cultural diversity has implications which stretch beyond its current formulations in both public and academic discourse, casting doubt on basic assumptions behind modern liberal democracy, and even on the viability of the nation-state in its present form. My overall conclusion is that reorganizing our forms of governance to be more polycentric in structure, and pluralist in orientation, would be a fruitful response to multiculturalism in both theory and practice.

“Introduction: Multiculturalism in Contemporary Britain: Policy, Law and Theory” (co-author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in Contemporary Britain: Policy, Law and Theory, Routledge (2019).

This chapter surveys the different issues that fall under the umbrella of ‘multiculturalism,’ sketching the trajectory of British multiculturalism since 1945, and examining its broader legal and philosophical contexts. This narrative highlights the empirical and theoretical connections between multiculturalism and decolonization, and that the conceptualization of multiculturalism in political theory is more wide-ranging than in law or policy. This helps foreground neglected aspects of British multiculturalism, and suggests widening the scope of the political theory of multiculturalism even further. I conclude by drawing out the connections between the chapters in the rest of the volume in detail, which shows that a deeper understanding of contemporary British multiculturalism inexorably leads us back to fundamental philosophical and practical questions regarding the structure and purpose of the British polity.

“Liberal Democracy, Nationalism and Culture: Multiculturalism and Scottish Independence” (co-author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in Contemporary Britain: Policy, Law and Theory, Routledge (2019).

In this chapter, I show that proponents of Scottish independence often foreground the claim that Scotland forms a democratically relevant and underrepresented community which would function better as an independent state. This argument casts the nation in cultural rather than ethnic or purely political terms, and thus implicitly draws on forms of both liberal nationalist and multicultural political theory. Any plausible articulation, however, of such a ‘cultural nationalism’ ultimately reduces to a series of interrelated claims about the nature and effects of culture, identity and meaning. I demonstrate a post-foundational account of culture and identity as fluid, contested and overlapping renders the cultural nationalist position unsustainable. Britain is really constituted by multiple tiers of political identities, communities and democratic structures, which suggests traction for post-nationalisms such as political liberalism and cosmopolitanism. I sketch a distinctive form of post-national “cosmopolitanism” that focuses on local rather than universal attachments, identities and structures, concluding that more polycentric structures and practices of governance are required to help accommodate the fluid nature of culture and identity. A deeper analysis of multicultural political theory post-Brexit therefore supports a fundamental remaking of current constitutional arrangements and radical devolution across the whole of the United Kingdom

“‘Multiculturalism’ in Policy, Law and Theory: Britain, Brexit and Beyond” (co-author), in Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, eds., Multiculturalism in Contemporary Britain: Policy, Law and Theory, Routledge (2019).

This chapter assesses the relationship between multiculturalism and wider events in British and world politics in the last few years. I argue that Brexit, renewed calls for Scottish independence and a recent forms of liberal nationalism in the UK are best understood as part of ongoing contests over multiculturalism, postwar citizenship rights and national identity. Appreciating these connections reinforces my claim that the proper scope of British multiculturalism reaches beyond current discursive boundaries to include basic constitutional issues. It also shows the extent to which multiculturalism in the UK is inevitably entangled in wider international discourses, and cannot be understood in isolation from them. I show the recent crises in the UK—which have parallels in other democracies in Europe, North America and the Commonwealth—have their roots in the intersection of liberalism and imperialism before World War II, and the forms of globalization that came after it. Britain (and the modern world more broadly) has not yet mitigated the tensions between the colonial past and the ‘liberal’ present. This narrative clarifies the issues at stake, moving ‘multiculturalism’ past its current confines in policy, law and political theory, and suggests that the polycentricity I defended earlier cannot stop at the borders of Britain, but must apply worldwide. Ultimately, placing domestic cultural diversity within its broader contexts casts doubt on basic assumptions behind modern liberal democracy, the viability of the nation-state in its present form, and even the postwar international system.

“Introduction: Multiculturalism in Contemporary Britain: Policy, Law and Theory” (co-author), Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 21(1): 1-21 (2018).

“Multiculturalism and Meaning” (in preparation)

Will Kymlicka is the most influential theorist of multiculturalism in the Anglophone world today. His core argument for liberal multiculturalism is grounded in the claim that culture forms a context of meaningful choice for its members, thereby facilitating the selection and pursuit of their ends. He does little, however, to flesh out the precise way in which culture makes choices meaningful, nor does he give a substantive account of his broader theory of meaning. The most obvious candidate for this theory of meaning is a form of linguistic contextualism, which also seems to provide a defense against the cosmopolitan critique of Jeremy Waldron. I will show that contextualism is controversial in and of itself, and (in any event) incompatible with fundamental parts of Kymlicka’s theory. I provide an account of meaning and culture as intentional, which draws on postfoundational philosophy of mind and language, and I suggest an alternative defense of multiculturalism based in the value of cultural diversity rather than cultural security.

“Culture, State and Exit” (in preparation)

A core normative concern for multiculturalists is the justice of internal legal structures, including claims by some minority groups for exemptions from general laws, or for political autonomy. Variegated domestic legal and political arrangements increase the likelihood of movement within states as well as between them, which in turn means consideration of rights of exit and entry are a necessary part of any theory of multiculturalism. In this paper I explore these issues through the multiculturalism of Chandran Kukathas, who advocates a radically decentralized vision of domestic society as a “liberal archipelago.” His theory turns on two central normative principles, freedom of conscience and a related freedom of association, both of which are defended through an account of freedom as non-compulsion. I offer an internal philosophical critique of his account of freedom of conscience, arguing that even on his own terms it is unduly subjective, and that a clearer analysis of conscience requires ascribing additional interests to individuals which significantly change both the right of exit and the role of the state. I conclude by showing that that the holistic account of culture underlying my critique indicates the need for a form of polycentric governance with a more interventionist state, which is unusual in the literature. This decentered “welfare” state will provide material support and education for individuals who have exited a group, giving internal “refugees” the resources needed to form new associations.

“Luck, Equality and Essentialism: The Troubled Legacy of Liberal Multiculturalism” (in preparation)

Some of the most trenchant criticisms of liberal multiculturalism allege that it mistakenly reifies and essentializes culture. This paper argues that, despite his protestations, Kymlicka’s dominant theory of liberal multiculturalism cannot avoid these critiques due to his initial commitment to a form of luck egalitarianism which draws on Rawls, Dworkin, and GA Cohen. I will demonstrate that Kymlicka is ultimately faced with a choice between abandoning the luck egalitarian premises that give normative weight to his theory, or embracing an implausible account of culture in essentialist and reified terms. Finally, I will demonstrate that the most prominent liberal and/or luck egalitarian reformulations of liberal multiculturalism, made by the later Kymlicka, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, GA Cohen, and Alan Patten, do not circumvent my critique, or only do so in such a way that, rather than leading to their stated conclusions, they more plausibly support more a polycentric and pluralist multiculturalism.

“Polycentricity and Pluralism: Towards a Socialist Multiculturalism” (in preparation)

I start by summarizing my form of polycentric and pluralist multiculturalism which I have defended elsewhere. I then examine different strands of socialist and liberal thought, paying particular attention to the relationship between my position and those of JS Mill and GDH Cole. I argue that older, non-utopian and non-statist forms of socialism avoid the progressivism inherent in much modern liberal thought and practice, whilst also suggesting the value of forms of political, economic, and cultural practices that might facilitate social experimentation, renewal, and change. Recovering these aspects of socialism would mitigate the tension between historical specificity and normative principle that is particularly acute within contemporary liberal democracy. Older forms of socialism provide an alternative to much modern liberal, libertarian, and leftist thinking, suggesting social democracy must return to its radical local roots in the face of increasing globalization and diversity.

“Cultural Diversity, Concepts of Community, and the Crisis of the EU” (in preparation)

Building on Mason (2000) I will analyze the concept of “community” at a philosophical level, concentrating on the important ontological and normative differences between different types of community present within the EU. For example, instrumental associations versus “ordinary” and “moralized” communities, and community in its political, economic and cultural forms. I will show the EU has no consistent and stable concept of community, allowing political actors to invoke the term community to cover a range of incompatible positions.