Arguments Against Unitarianism

In today’s globalized world, diversity is more and more a reality that contemporary nations have to live with and deal with. The relation between solidarity and diversity has become one of the key political and cultural issues and it carries particular weight in the British case as Britain has transformed into a multi-racial and multi-cultural society since the 1950s. National mentality tends to regard diversity, difference, and complexity as a problem for fear of the possible cultural and political “fragmentation” or “disorder” that might be aroused. So negotiating a way between an ideal Unitarianism and a pragmatic pluralism is a challenge facing policy-makers. In debates concerning multiculturalism in Britain, Shi thinks

481), thus given an opportunity of “being British” in their own ways. For Shi, this view is more traditional, conservative, and majority-oriented. Habermas offers an alternative approach by arguing for “constitutional patriotism,” which supports the functional fusion of the nation of citizens with the ethnic nation. He believes that “societies can be held together by political culture if that political culture is inclusive of social and cultural rights.” (Robins, 481:2001) But this “constitutional patriotism” has been criticized as being “too weak a bond” and for “lack of emotional

Chaired by Lord Bhikhu Parekh, the report starts by rejecting the imagined or illusory singularity and homogeneity of Britishness : “British national identity has always been more diverse than it is normally imagined to be.” It then points out that contemporary global transformations are making diversity both more apparent and more unmanageable. They have shaken the unified conception of Britishness hitherto taken for granted and have injected a sense of fluidity and uncertainty into what was formerly experienced by any as a settled culture. Though the need to maintain shared values and social cohesion is acknowledged, the report discusses more, and puts a positive value on, diversity and difference in British society. By characterizing culture as “constantly adapting and diversifying”, the report wants to convey a sense of the cultural complexities of “post-national” everyday life in Britain (Robins, 483-48:2001). To a great extent, the Runnymede Trust’s Report serves as a counter-balance to David Miller’s policy of