Interculturalism vs Multiculturalism-Urban Politics

HALIL YILDIRIM
014001231
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
GEOGRAPHY DEPARTMENT, SPRING TERM (Amount of words: 5012 for 5 credits)

CRITIQUE OF MULTICULTURALISM BEHALF OF INTERCULTURALIM: POSSIBLE FUTURE FOR INTERCULTURAL HELSINKI

With increasing cultural and social differentiation in Europe and other parts of world by migration or relocation after following decolonization and post war era also has brought some ambiguous problems in the sense of disputes, contest between social and cultural groups. It causes to scholars discuss and reconsider the concept of ‘nation state’ and tries to find solutions to diversity like Multiculturalism, Interculturalism and Liberalism. That paper critically aims to examine definitions and some aspects of interculturalism and multiculturalism. It starts to discuss positive points of Interculturalism by comparing with multiculturalism. It can be basically exemplified by emphasizing main points of Interculturalism such as fostering interaction between cultures, providing collective identities among citizens and rejecting illiberal cultural perspectives. Moreover, it also aims to examine how can intercultural policies implement to city planning, how it can be fostered and what are the possible benefits of intercultural policies on city planning by specifically examining Helsinki City.

KEY WORDS: Multiculturalism and Interculturalism, Intercultural City Policies, Helsinki

‘Multiculturalism’ vs. ‘Interculturalism’

To start with Multiculturalism; it’s good to pointed out that interpretations of such terms are quite challenging. That is noted by Bhabha (1998: 31) who has tried to explain the terms as a ‘portmanteau term’, which can cover a variety of meanings inside and critiques. In this respect, the idea of multiculturalism might be said to have a ‘chameleonic’ quality that facilitates its simultaneous adoption and rejection in the critique or defense of a position (Smith 2010). That’s to say, point of view is essential factor to evaluate the term. It has different meanings and the way of performing in different places. As discussing Multiculturalism in North American countries in a comparable manner with Europe, difference among them is quite obvious. To take an example from Federal Canada which is more modest compared with north-western Europe in the case of Multicultural policies. (Brubaker
2001, Joppke 2004, McGhee 2008) Of course possible political damage of Multicultural policies are also relatively more than Europe. Multiculturalism basically includes seven important points; it starts with recognition of different cultural groups and then continues with respecting each other. Public has a role of promoting existence of small groups and assist them to preserve their own value. Rosada (1997) explains Multiculturalism like a system which beliefs and behaviors that recognizes and respects the presence of all diverse groups in an organization or society, acknowledges and values their socio-cultural differences, and encourages and enables their continued contribution within an inclusive cultural context which empowers all within the organization or society. Nature of Multicultural policy is referring to facilitating fragmentation then it celebrates the diversity emerged from society. It also seeks to emphasize rights and safety of minorities. Moreover it tries to promote group representation and political, economical and social attendance of different groups. Even though definition discussed above drawing general lines of Multiculturalism, as it stated before the term can refer diverse meanings and different motivations, focus in different cases. Case of Canada for example, focus was from the start on constitutional and land issues, in a way that informed definitions of nationhood and related to unresolved legal questions concerning the entitlements and status of indigenous peoples, not to mention the further issue of the rise of a nationalist and secessionist movement in French-speaking Quebec.( Nasar Meer & Tariq Modood, 2011) In Europe, Multiculturalism is more likely referring to deal with immigrants and make easier their presence and adaptation. This kind of multiculturalism nevertheless simultaneously encompassed the recognition of discrete groups with territorial claims, such as the Native Peoples and the Quebeckers, even though these groups wanted to be treated as ‘nations’ within a multinational state, rather than as minority groups in a mononational state. (Nasar Meer & Tariq Modood, 2011) As a result, multicultural policy was challenging with the reality of place’s social identity and naturally not success. Emergence of liberal trends and its fostering affect on multicultural policy is also another important point. Liberal trend refers ‘fredom’ of choice, promoting individualism and supports the concept of Multiculturalism. As Trudeau (1971) stated ‘we are free to be ourselves’, which refers application of liberal values and being preserved from ‘other’.
On the other hand, there are various disabled parts of Multiculturalism. Modood, for example, insists that ‘‘when new groups enter a society, there has to be some education and refinement of . . . sensitivities in the light of changing circumstances and the specific vulnerabilities of new entrants’’ (2006: 61). In contrast to that, Multicultural policies tend to not give that essential education and defining sensitivities of new entrants in changing circumstances, it tries to preserve the way they are. Even though multiculturalism aims to deal with diversity among society and problems emerged from cultural diversity, the term itself promoting segregation in society at the same time. To understand better how Multiculturalism can promote segregation, it’s better to look dilemma in the minds of citizens. By fostering different cultural groups and their differentiation can result with conflict and disagreement between groups. Because Multiculturalism tend to diversify and accept the difference depend on religion, race, ethnicity or nationality. It defines the groups according the factors stated before. Re-forming of national identity and citizenship, and offering an emotional identity with the whole to counterbalance the emotional loyalties to ethnic and religious communities (Modood 2007a). It usually causes a challenge between multiculturalism and commune well-being and respecting each other. It may also result with interaction problems between groups which can result with extreme contrast and
‘othering’ process.

To continue with examining ‘Interculturalism’ in a comparable manner with
‘multiculturalism’, it apparently steers in the direction of interaction and dialogue more than ‘multiculturalism’. Instead of promoting ‘group’ or minor identities, it aims to create cohesiveness and solidarity in society in order to create collective well-being. That’s to say, it is more likely a rejection to the disabled parts of multiculturalism such as illiberal cultural practices. As Wood et al. (2006:9) stated ‘communication’ is the focus of interculturalism and the approach should aim to assist forward dialogue, exchange and reciprocal understanding between people of different backgrounds.

To understand why communication and interaction has a vital value, it’s better to examine the identities of people which make difference. As stated above, multiculturalism approach can diverse people with their different identities coming from their different backgrounds like religion, nation, language etc. But defining and segregation of groups don’t work for the benefit of society well-being. According to Taylor, therefore, people can no longer be recognized on the basis of identities determined from their positions in social hierarchies alone but rather, through taking account of the real manner in which people shape their identities. That is to say Taylor emphasizes the importance of ‘dialogical’ relationships to argue that it is a mistake to suggest that people shape their identities
‘monologically’ or without an intrinsic dependence upon dialogue with others (see Meer
2010: 31_56). Taylor’s account as follows (1992: 25_26): [O]ur identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. Non recognition or misrecognition can inflict harm; can be a form of oppression, imprisoning some in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being. Taylor’s statements are examining the importance of communication and interaction importance among groups and how it may create harmful results in the case of absence of interaction.
Another approach to interaction between cultures is coming from Kymlicka (1995). It explains how cultures are playing major role in our decisions and lives. It may bring us self esteem or satisfaction and sometimes also benefits. However, our cultural background can also damage our self evolution. By interaction between cultures and groups, cultures start to change or softened their values and develop the weak parts of their character. To this Parekh (2000: 167) offers the following explanation: ‘Since human capacities and values conflict, every culture realizes a limited range of them and neglects, marginalizes and suppresses others. However rich it may be, no culture embodies all that is valuable in human life and develops the full range of human possibilities. Different cultures thus correct and complement each other, expand each other’s horizon of thought and alert each other to new forms of human fulfillment. The value of other cultures is independent of whether or not they are options for us . . . inassimilable otherness challenges us intellectually and morally, stretches our imagination, and compels us to recognize the limits of our categories of thought.’ It clearly examines how changing values between different cultures results with complementation of each other and open new horizons to our minds.

By promoting interaction between groups, interculturalism also brings ‘cohesiveness’ to society. Knowing and communication between groups brings the sense of ‘togetherness’ and prevent us to create offensive stereo-types of other. In other words ‘Interculturalism is concerned with the task of developing cohesive civil societies by turning notions of singular identities into those of multiple ones, and by developing a shared and common value system and public culture. In building from a deep sharing of differences of culture and experience it encourages the formation of interdependencies which structure personal identities that go beyond nations or simplified ethnicities. (Booth 2003: 432) That is to say, by interaction, our self-constructed values and differences coming from our given background can be soften and lead us to find the middle path for the wellbeing of majority. Interaction and promoting cohesiveness are challenging characteristics of Interculturalism approach with Multiculturalism. Because, multiculturalism is lacking in that it not only places too great an emphasis upon difference and diversity, upon what divides us more than what unites us, but also that it ignores the needs of majorities. It thus encourages resentment, fragmentation and disunity. (Goodhart , 2004)

Another importance of interaction and forming a collective identity is underlying our perception for ‘other’. As stated before less interaction and communication can create stereotypes and fear of other and it may result with mistrust between groups. It’s another problem that multiculturalism approach challenges. In the sake of promoting liberal ideas and individualism, western public policies are less engage with forming and promoting cohesiveness among society. In other words, (Joppke 2004) European societies and states have been too laissez-faire in promoting commonality. Kymlicka (2005b: 83) describes, ‘‘it is very difficult to get support for multiculturalism policies if the groups that are the main beneficiaries of these policies are perceived as carriers of illiberal cultural practices that violate norms of human rights’’. Even though multiculturalism can be promoted to society, it doesn’t necessarily take away the negative or false thinking of other. In Britain report that 77 per cent of people are convinced that ‘‘Islam has a lot of fanatical followers’’, 68 per cent consider it ‘‘to have more to do with the middle ages than the modern world’’ and 64 per cent believe that Islam ‘‘treats women badly’’ (Field 2007: 453). To conclude up, with the results of report in Britain, it can be said that less interacted different groups in society tend to have more fear or considering other culture as an illiberal practices.

TOWARDS TO INTERCULTURAL CITY

Multicultural means process of recognition of cultural and linguistic communities to keep their identities and also promote them to reflect and celebrate the cultural differences. The term intercultural is used to make people from different cultures getting together and forming a collective identity with their cultural, ethnic diversities. In order to evaluate diversity problems seen in cities, after failing multicultural strategies, trend is going towards to implement Intercultural City projects. With the help of these projects, aim is solving and managing crises emerged from different cultures at same place. It includes variety of social, architectural, physical design, renewal of public and social services and strategies to create a collective identity and promote interaction to evaluate diversity among community. That is to say, original characteristic of intercultural approach like interaction, dialogue can put in the action by implementing Intercultural City Project. ‘The Intercultural City does not simply “cope” with diversity but uses it as a source of dynamism, innovation, creativity and growth. It accepts diversity as a norm and helps people from all groups – minorities as well as the majority –benefit from it. The intercultural city shapes its educational, social, housing, employment, cultural and related policies, and its public spaces, in ways which enable people from different cultural backgrounds to mix exchange and interact for mutual benefit. Structures and mechanisms for public consultation, debate and decision-making represent the community’s cultural mix and are able to deal with issues of cultural difference. The intercultural city does not avoid cultural conflict but accepts it and develops ways of dealing with it. Political leaders and media promote an understanding of diversity as an asset and encourage citizens to perceive it in the same way. Because of close interaction and trust between cultural groups and strong participation in civic life, the intercultural city is able to respond positively to the global social and economic challenges.1
To continue with the reasons why diversity problem is handled in local level, it’s good to note that city’s functionality and responsibility is increasing. Trend of Political authority is lessening in the center and diffuse to local authorities by various reasons like population, globalization, failure of top-down, centrality strategies and changing role of institutions and services. For example, services like education, health, housing, protection and political involvement are provided not from centre anymore. Moreover, regulation and policy making in order to handle with diversity problems cannot be understood from central and should take into account in local level. That way, instead of considering a solution to diversity problem from outside, considering the problem inside would provide more accurate and efficient strategies in order to regulate ethnic, cultural diversities.
There are several of strategies implemented in order to evaluate diversity problem throughout the history such as Assimilationist policy, Guestworker Policy, Non-Policy, Multicultural Policy and Intercultural Policy. Assimilationist policy refers to change the cultural characteristics of ethnic minority by dominant culture and reject the differences. It’s possible to see Assimilationist strategies during Colonial Era and in the time of empires. Guestworker Policy has emerged after WWII; European Countries were seeking to take migration as a workforce to build and renewal of their countries. Turkish minority in Germany can be a good example for that. Guestworker Policy offer short-term solutions to handle diversity problems and proposed that workers would go back their countries. Thus, it lacks in long- term management of diversity. Non-Policy means rejection of existing diversity problems and usually cause destructive and devastating social, cultural results. For example, Kurdish problem in Turkey can be an example for non-policy. Rejection of cultural and ethnic problems makes the problem bigger. Eventually, during 1980s, PKK (Terrorist Organization) has emerged to express cultural, social identities and acceptance by political order. Nowadays, even though public acceptance and recognition has given to Kurdish minority, PKK still continues its catastrophic actions. Multicultural policy has explained before and shortly refers recognition of different cultures and trying to preserve their uniqueness without considering interaction and dialogue between groups. By implementing multicultural policies on each branch of life such as education, health, social and etc.; it can be said that it results with segregation among society and tend to promote hatred among groups. It also results with physical and allocation segregation like ghettoes. Turkish neighborhoods can be given as an example for wrong cultural policies. Leaving minority to their own and waiting that they would integrate the host culture has failed. Lastly Intercultural Policy refers acceptance of minorities’ not for a short term but as a permanent member of society by regulating laws and institutions in order to promote full recognition and protection. It also aims to create empathy between groups by promoting mutual understanding and sharing. Main difference can be summarized as: ‘There is however a significant difference between the Intercultural and all the other policies. All the others are different ways of dealing with minority or the outsider, but with an underlying assumption that this will not ask any serious question of, or require change by, the majority. An intercultural city, on the other hand, is one in which there is the assumption that diversity is the norm and that it is incumbent upon all residents to make adjustments. What the other models also lack is any sense of the dynamic energy of our diverse European urban society, in which the movement of people is matched by the interplay and trading of goods and services, ideas and customs, dreams and aspirations, fears and anxieties, skills and aptitudes as people make places, make money, make love, make families and make new identities within and across ethnic lines.’1 It exemplified Intercultural approach very well with emphasizing its characteristics of the comprehensiveness and of dealing with dynamism among society.
Diversity can be engine of growth and prosperity if it managed well with proper strategy. By giving example from changing and increasing diversity character among Europe with migration, it can change into an advantage, if host community can implement proper strategies to use the skills and knowledge has brought by migrants. For example, it can be said that migrants are more likely work in basic and dirty profession which host society don’t want to perform anymore such as cleaning, dishwasher, constructing worker. Another advantage, by migration and cultural differentiation, economic, political and social links between countries can also increase. For example, after migration toward to Germany from Turkey, links between two countries has also increased economically. First multi-national companies have entered to Turkey usually comes from Germany. Moreover, migrants are also more hard-working and more striving a better quality of life than host society. It can increase productivity and efficiency in economy of country. Lastly diversity can also bring in new aspirations to a host society. Steve Miller, former CEO and chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, the world’s fourth largest company says: ‘You begin to find that you get some really neat ideas generated from creating a culture where people of different ethnicities, cultures, backgrounds, [and] countries… come together. They will come up with an answer that is different from what any one of them would have come up with individually’. (Johansson, Frans, 2004) In addition to that, mayor of London says: Londoners believe the capital’s mix of cultures, languages and ethnicities is one of the best things about living in it. This enormous increase in the range of possibilities open to people will lead to more exchange and interaction as people choose from what is best in different cultures. This is increasingly important for Londoners’ jobs and incomes.2

Implementing Intercultural approach is also enhancing capacity of facing disputes between different groups and embarrasses possible catastrophic results. Citizenship in a intercultural society refers communication and interaction which is more asking questions and providing more understanding of ‘other’. By asking questions and efforts to understand other cultures can gives more solutions for disputes and also promote middle-way for collective well-being. To sum up, it means exchanging and debating which leads co- operation and adopting different values. In order to increasing capacity of being intercultural, public should promote new services and regulate existing ones which can realize the contamination of ‘other’ and promote collective self.
There are vital preconditions; ‘which is that all citizens should have democratic rights, particularly equality before the law, access to political participation, freedom of worship and legal protection from discrimination and harassment.’ 3 Before implementing Intercultural strategy, public has to provide an egalitarian laws and regulations which can make all citizens feel equal and increased their attachment to the community. It can be said, city strategy need that the authority has to reformed their way of interacting with citizens and should give trust among its citizens by engaging directly with its population. However by proving interaction and implementing changes on the way of governing and institutions would inevitably results with conflicts but providing continuum of dialogue would come through possible conflicts in time. Political interaction and changing the way of governing means here provide attendance of not only indigenous people but also migrants and minority. Main difference emphasized above between Intercultural Strategy than other strategies is giving solutions by providing attendance of both indigenous and minority people. Thus, possible conflict emerged from feeling marginalized also has prevented. ‘As the intention is a transformation of relationships and interaction city-wide, the vision and values cannot be those of city authorities alone but needs to be collective; built, shared and owned by a wide variety of individuals, institutions, groups and communities across the city’.1
Another important element of Intercultural Strategy is consultation and participation. As stated before interaction and dialogue are the main characteristics of Intercultural approach and it can be only achieved through providing participation and advisory services. It can be fostered by intercultural social centers, by creating events and promoting partnerships and alliances in every field of society. In order to promote participation, it requires also recognition of other. In a short and long term, gaining of Intercultural strategy should be also calculated and by considering the results, mistakes on strategies should be reconsidering. Participation to Intercultural Strategy not only means minority or indigenous citizen participation but also every institution should have a role in strategy. By using communication organs like newspapers, local TV, advertisement, Interculturalism approach should be promoted. Because ‘the broadcast, print and, increasingly, web-based media play a powerful role in society. They inform but can also influence the opinion of individuals and whole groups and this gives them a tremendous potential to reinforce or undermine social harmony - which they exercise with varying degrees of responsibility.’1 Our daily live, such communication organs play a major role in forming our tendencies and ideologies. Simply, we are reading at least one newspaper or watching TV or looking news on internet.

HELSINKI AN AN INTERCULTURAL CITY

With increasing diversity among Finnish society by immigration and Somalis refuges brings debates over strategies to handle with diversity, promoting cohesiveness and keeping Finnish solidarity. ‘Currently there are 55,000 couples of mixed racial origin and 14% of all new marriages in 2007 were mixed, the figure rising to a remarkable 26% in Helsinki itself. It is estimated there are already over 160,000 children from intercultural unions. Since Lola
Wallinkoski a Nigerian-Finnish woman became Miss Finland in 1996, the country has been unable to ignore this phenomenon.’ 13 After various debates, Helsinki city planning chose to increase its openness and interculturality in order to deal with welfare problems and its success economically, politically and socially. Nowadays, main assumption is that Economical success and future protection is underlying to what extend a city has openness and to what extend a city answers the needs of its citizens and promote cohesiveness among them. Why openness is so important in the case of future? Mobility of economy, innovative ideas and creativity is more tend to move place which has a cosmopolitan character. ‘Openness is illustrated in many ways: How the city welcomes in foreigners, how it addresses cultural diversity, how it attracts skills and talent, how open its business climate is, how the city manages its affairs, the extent to which different sectors and institutions collaborate, the degree to which the city works in an interdisciplinary way and how the city in all its facets encourages the development of a creative ecology.’ (Phil Wood and Charles Landry, 2010)

Firstly, in order to success and create a Intercultural Helsinki, first point is considering the tolerance. According Gareth Rice (2011), Finns are enough tolerated and open minded to implement intercultural policies. Moreover, He discuss there is Finnish dilemma for considering diversity and promoting success welfare system and cohesiveness. Even though tolerance is one of the main characteristics of Finnish Society, according to Intercultural Report by Phil Wood and Charles Landry (2010), Helsinki is unprepared about topics of difference in the ways people live and think. In order to evaluate problems emerged from tolerance and diversity, as stated before there should be reforming of institutions and responsibilities of public to its citizens such as housing, social facilities or religious facilities.

Secondly, Finnish society is well-known with its egalitarian characteristics. By changing social structure with migration and diversification, power relations are also changed and it’s perceived as a threat to egalitarian character of Finnish Society. Diversity has also perceived as a thread to future of welfare state. Gareth Rice (2011) proposed two possible ways; one is Swedish welfare system which homogeneous society with intensely shared values system or U.S.A egoist and individualist perception among its citizens like ‘why should I pay for them while they are doing things that I wouldn’t do? ’ By implementing Intercultural policies, cohesiveness and collectiveness among society can be achieved. Perception of citizens coming from different backgrounds and cultures can feel to belonging same unity and can share and shape their future altogether. It also prevents possible social, economical and political segregation among society.

Thirdly in order to create Intercultural Helsinki, there should be efforts and strategies which can increase openness of city. By attracting creative class, workers and investors, the city would not only have a cosmopolite character but also it provides competition which can result with efficient and quality production. Openness and receiving migrants can be interpreted by indigenous people like losing opportunities but ‘A study of American cities showed that in those receiving high immigrant numbers, native workers saw their wages grow more than those of their counterparts in low-immigration cities’15

Lastly, Intercultural Approach to city of Helsinki would also bring creativity. Interaction between cultures and people can also promote correction of disabled parts of society. It also enhances to come up with new, innovative and creative ideas. Diversity among citizens is coming from their different cultural, religion and language background. It can be said it’s impossible to evaluate a subject from five different perspectives for one person but with managing existing diversity, it can provide a mix of perspectives and different solutions for one subject.

CONCLUSION

The paper tries to examine diversity problems and underlying reasons behind it. It also continued to explain strategies dealing with diversity like Multiculturalism and Interculturalism. It also examines two ambiguous terms ‘Multiculturalism’ and
‘Interculturalism’ in a comparable and critical manner, introducing main characteristics of Intercultural approach and how it can be implement to cities. Moreover it introduces possible future of Helsinki as an Intercultural city and which strategies should be followed in order to be successful. Introduction of diversity to Helsinki brings also the attitude toward problems are emerging from social diversity and migrants. Especially, future of Finnish welfare is discussing with diversity. Migrants impact on welfare state has already far exaggerated and used as a political specimen to get support from public. Garet Rice (2011) gives the example of PS’s success which derived from manipulation of public opinion and scaremongering and also blaming immigrants for pressures on the welfare state and other social problems. As paper discussed above, in order to create a successful Intercultural City, policy should comprehend and provide participation of every individual and institutions. Politicians shouldn’t take advantage of self-construct fear of migrants and diversity in order to take public support. Moreover, newspaper shouldn’t categorize places according to ethnicity. That is to say, Meri-Rastila region shouldn’t written as a ‘little Mogadishu ‘ by columnist. Instead of emphasizing differences among society, commonalities should be encouraged. That time, welfare and future of Finnish Society would be guaranteed.

REFERENCES

1- THE INTERCULTURAL CITY: what it is and how to make it work, 10 January 2008, Introductory document for cities participating in the Pilot Phase of the Intercultural Cities Programme, Joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission

2- THE INTERCULTURAL CITY: what it is and how to make it work, 10 January 2008, Introductory document for cities participating in the Pilot Phase of the Intercultural Cities Programme, Joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission, originally Quoted from http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/story.php?articleID=23609

3- The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) provides the most authoritative guide to how different states perform in regard to six key policy areas which shape a migrant 's journey to full citizenship, http://www.integrationindex.eu

4- Bhabha, H.K., 1998. Culture’s in between. In: D. Bennet, ed. Multicultural states: rethinking difference and identity. London: Routledge.

5- Smith, J.I., 2004. Muslims as partners in interfaith encounter: models for dialogue. In: Z.H. Bukhari, S.S.
Nyang, M. Ahmad and J.L. Esposito, eds. Muslims’ place in the American public square hope, fears, and aspirations. New York: Altamira Press.

6- Nasar Meer & Tariq Modood, 2011, How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?

7- Wood, P., Landry, C. and Bloomfield, J., 2006. Cultural diversity in Britain: a toolkit for cross-cultural co- operation. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

8- Kymlicka, W., 2005b. The uncertain futures of multiculturalism. Canadian diversity, 4 (1), 82_85.
9- Joppke, C., 2004. The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy. British journal of sociology, 55 (2), 237_257.

10- Field, C.D., 2007. Islamophobia in contemporary Britain: the evidence of the opinion polls, 1988_ 2006.
Islam and Christian_Muslim relations, 18 (4), 447_477.

11- Quoted in Johansson, Frans (2004) Creating the Medici Effect: breakthrough insights at the intersection of ideas, concepts and cultures. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, p.80

12- Phil Wood and Charles Landry, Report by Comedia, 2010, ‘Helsinki as an open and
Intercultural City’

13- Quoted from Phil Wood and Charles Landry, Report by Comedia, 2010, ‘Helsinki as an open and Intercultural City’, Figures from the Duo Project www.familiaclub.fi

14- Gareth Rice, Helsinki Times 12-18.05.2011, ‘Is there a Finnish ‘progressive dilemma’?’

15- Quoted from Phil Wood and Charles Landry, Report by Comedia, 2010, ‘Helsinki as an open and Intercultural City’, original source: Ottaviano, Gianmarco and Peri, Giovanni (2006) The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US cities.Journal of Economic Geography, 6/1, pp 9-44

References: 5- Smith, J.I., 2004. Muslims as partners in interfaith encounter: models for dialogue. In: Z.H. Bukhari, S.S. 6- Nasar Meer & Tariq Modood, 2011, How does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism? 7- Wood, P., Landry, C 8- Kymlicka, W., 2005b. The uncertain futures of multiculturalism. Canadian diversity, 4 (1), 82_85. 9- Joppke, C., 2004. The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state: theory and policy. British journal of sociology, 55 (2), 237_257. 10- Field, C.D., 2007. Islamophobia in contemporary Britain: the evidence of the opinion polls, 1988_ 2006. Intercultural City’ 13- Quoted from Phil Wood and Charles Landry, Report by Comedia, 2010, ‘Helsinki as an open and Intercultural City’, Figures from the Duo Project www.familiaclub.fi