What Is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
What Is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
What Is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
Cultural diversity raises pressing issues for both political theory and practice. The
remaking of the world since 1945 has increased demographic diversity within many
states, and led to greater acknowledgment of the value of social heterogeneity. The
heightened awareness of difference has contributed to pressure on traditional
forms of liberal-democratic governance, which historically have operated within
polities that are—or at least have assumed themselves to be—broadly culturally
homogeneous. The term “multiculturalism” refers to the political, legal and philo-
sophical strategies that emerged after World War II to accommodate this new-
found social diversity. For much of this period, multiculturalism enjoyed a steady
rise to prominence, but in recent years the growing consensus has been questioned
by politicians and prominent social commentators. Whether this amounts to a
“retreat” or “rebalancing” is still being debated, but it is clear that multiculturalism
is being reevaluated. This volume adds to the existing empirical and normative
literature by situating modern multiculturalism in its national, international, and
historical contexts, bringing together practitioners from across the humanities
and social sciences. It addresses questions vital for understanding contemporary
debates: What is “multiculturalism,” and why did it come about? What dilemmas
has it posed for liberal-democratic governance? How have these been responded
to in theory and practice, and are the different responses adequate? Are there alter-
native approaches to cultural diversity that have been overlooked?
We start this introductory chapter by sketching the different issues that may be
characterized as “multicultural,” noting how the scope of the term varies between
different contexts and straddles theory and practice. We nevertheless provide a
rough definition to help guide our analysis, and situate modern multiculturalism
1
2 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
W HAT I S M U LT IC U LT U R A L I SM ?
T H E O RY A N D P R AC T IC E
There are several different senses of “theory” and “practice” relevant to this vol-
ume, the most salient of which relate to the understandings of multiculturalism in
politics and academia.2 In political practice, multiculturalism is largely construed
in relation to postwar immigration. The central debate in this conceptualization
is regarding the merits of assimilation versus integration, and how best to achieve
the desired outcomes through adjustments in policy and law. This understanding
of multiculturalism predominates worldwide in current political discourse and
has been the subject of much recent public debate. Multiculturalism in academia
is closely associated with political theory, where its scope is much broader than in
political debates. In that literature, which is dominated by thinkers from Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand, multiculturalism encompasses, not just immigrant
integration, but also groups such as the Québécois and indigenous peoples and
their claims for political autonomy or reparations.
4 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
SI T UAT I N G P O S T WA R M U LT IC U LT U R A L I SM
Although cultures have come into contact with each other throughout history, the
problem of how to manage these interactions between and within states became
especially prominent after 1945.9 The parallel processes of decolonization and glo-
balization set in motion the movement of both people and ideas on a vast scale,
creating in many societies a substantive rise in cultural diversity and increased
awareness of it. The related rise of human rights discourse, identity politics, and
indigenous movements led to greater acknowledgement of the plight of minority
groups, which in many societies prompted policies self-consciously addressing the
challenges of cultural diversity. These policies started in the immediate aftermath
of World War II, but became more prominent in the 1970s, when both Canada and
Australia adopted official state multiculturalism. Many other liberal democracies
adopted similar policy approaches in the following decades, with most public actors
consistently endorsing multiculturalism in some form. The steady rise of multicul-
turalism was halted by the events of 9/11, which, as well as raising the specter of
domestic terrorism, triggered the “war on terror” and the invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq. This has led some commentators to argue that multiculturalism is experi-
encing some form of crisis, adding fresh urgency to already volatile debates.10
Modern multiculturalism as a set of social realities and related series of
discourses must therefore be situated primarily in the period from 1945 to the
present day, which is the main focus of this volume. Its factual and philosophical
roots go back much deeper, however, to the gradual, haphazard and contested rise
of the nation and state as the dominant forms of social organization in the West. In
the early modern period, the shift from smaller feudal and sacral communities to
larger modern society gave rise to new forms of governance with which to manage
the inevitable social upheaval.11 As the modern liberal and bureaucratic state
developed, it impinged on earlier forms of social organization, which inevitably
provoked resistance, fueling conflict between the central and local. These tensions
were exacerbated by the Reformation and the rapid socioeconomic changes driven
by capitalism, with the rise of nationalism partly attributable to the dislocating
effects of these. The modern nation-state thus evolved partly in order to manage
greater social diversity, yet simultaneously facilitated forms of social and political
cohesion operable on a far larger scale than in previous eras.
What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice? 7
most political theorists still utilize some form of the basic organizing typology of
groups and rights drawn from the Old Commonwealth, and therefore the focus
on immigrant groups and national minorities remains, as does the clear tendency
of advocates of multiculturalism to limit claims to self-government to the latter.19
This volume makes an important contribution to the political theory literature
in two main ways. Firstly, it highlights that the standard typology is tailored to
historically specific situations and may have limited traction in contexts where not
all of the groups are present. Also, by tracing the connections between the differ-
ent forms of postwar multiculturalism, it demonstrates that even where all these
groups are present, their precise interactions are conditioned by local factors, par-
ticularly their varying experiences of colonialism. In turn, this foregrounds prob-
lematic presumptions behind the ascription of different rights to different groups,
particularly those grounded in functional accounts of the relationship between
culture and liberal-democratic governance. For example, many prominent politi-
cal theorists assume that “the nation” or “culture” plays a central—perhaps even
necessary—role in governance.20 Advocates of multicultural rights therefore tend
to take for granted that there is a stable cultural “core” to the typical nation-state,
which must be adjusted in response to minority claims, and critics often oppose
multicultural rights on the grounds that they will erode common principles and
values central to liberal democracy. Yet we will see that these sorts of assumptions
have limited application in the New Commonwealth, and that the historical cases
show the relationships between culture, nation, state, and governance to be both
highly contingent and deeply conditioned by empire. This volume therefore com-
plicates the typology of groups and rights that frames multiculturalism in politi-
cal theory, foregrounding problematic assumptions behind it and forcing us to
rethink central normative claims.
Secondly, this volume helps to mitigate a broader tension between universalist
and contextualist approaches that poses risks for the study of multiculturalism.
For example, abstract normative argument without an understanding of historical
context falsely homogenizes real-world difference, yet methodological contextu-
alism in turn has difficulty avoiding a relativism that loses normative purchase
altogether. This volume considers multiculturalism without committing a priori to
universalism or contextualism, and is therefore able to speak productively to both.
Our case-by-case exploration of multiculturalism in its various historical, geo-
graphical, and temporal contexts militates against the homogenizing tendencies
of universalist theory, but the overall volume highlights commonalities between
the normative issues at play in different countries. It therefore provides material
useful to both universalists and contextualists, while challenging extreme versions
of either approach.
Another aspect of the multicultural literature is comprised of detailed inves-
tigations of individual countries, or specific cases within those countries.21 This
strand overlaps with some of the narrower contextualist case studies in political
10 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
theory, but differs in that its primary focus is descriptive rather than normative.
These case studies therefore tend to possess greater historical detail and depth
than even the more empirically minded forms of political theory. Yet in doing so,
they can lose sight of the international aspects of modern multiculturalism, or
only assess these from a particular domestic perspective. This reduces the pos-
sibility of fruitful comparison across national contexts, and an empirical focus can
mean that scant attention is paid to normative issues, which are inseparable from
multiculturalism in both theory and practice. Even if descriptive accounts of the
normative issues are provided, the lack of mechanisms for comparison and assess-
ment make this literature less likely to address the core normative questions, or to
do so in a context-specific way. Case studies thus run the risk of joining more radi-
cal contextualist political theory in focusing so tightly on particular circumstances
that critical perspective is compromised.
As well as providing a series of detailed and insightful case studies of mul-
ticulturalism, the volume as a whole adds to the literature by retaining con-
siderable historical depth without foregoing normative purchase. Using the
Commonwealth to frame the array of cases covered in the different chapters
ensures we do not lose sight of the fact that the different national contexts are
connected by historical, international, and philosophical exchanges, which
also influence the form multiculturalism takes within them. It ensures that the
fundamental e mpirical and theoretical connections between multiculturalism,
decolonization, and liberal-democratic governance are not hidden by the specific
issues that occur in each country. This volume therefore facilitates comparison
by highlighting the normative issues that reoccur across national contexts, while
simultaneously throwing into relief their particular features.
The third aspect of the multiculturalism literature, and the one that this volume
most obviously contributes to, is comparative in orientation. There are many excel-
lent cross-national examinations of issues relevant to multiculturalism, embody-
ing a vast array of methodologies, particular objects of study, and philosophical
commitments. The comparative work on multiculturalism is therefore the most
heterogeneous strand of the literature, and contains the greatest preponderance
of self-consciously interdisciplinary work, making it difficult to summarize suc-
cinctly.22 Some works focus on comparisons between countries within particu-
lar geographical areas or organizations, or nations grouped together on the basis
that they raise similar issues or provide useful contrasts.23 Other cross-national
comparisons have focused on particular groups, such as indigenous peoples, or
particular aspects of multicultural regimes, such as law, especially international or
immigration law.24 Yet others focus either on the broad outline of contemporary
national policy regimes and discourses or on much more specific aspects of multi-
cultural policies, including their social effects.25
The existing comparative work on multiculturalism is, of course, extremely
valuable, but we hope to supplement it. Multiculturalism in all its aspects is part
What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice? 11
S T RU C T U R E A N D C O N T E N T
The volume is divided into three main sections, each dealing with a set of coun-
tries that raise distinctive but interrelated issues. The first section explores mul-
ticulturalism in the United Kingdom between 1945 and the present day. As the
imperial metropole and subsequent head of the Commonwealth, Britain has been
in a unique position to affect both the discourses and realties of multicultural-
ism, particularly in the immediate aftermath of World War II and the process of
decolonization. This section will examine the political and legal trajectory of mul-
ticulturalism in the UK during this period, as well as analyzing historical and con-
temporary debates over Britishness and citizenship.
The second section looks at multiculturalism in the “Old” Commonwealth
countries of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.27 These historically white-
dominated settler colonies have a history that is dissimilar from most other parts
of the former empire, and as “Greater Britain” their political, legal, economic, and
cultural relationships with the UK were also substantively different. All three of
12 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
these countries have had comparable processes of settlement, contact with indig-
enous peoples, and immigration, and are generally considered to be world leaders
in official approaches to cultural diversity in the postwar era.
The third part of the book contains chapters on the “New” Commonwealth
countries of India, Nigeria, Malaysia/Singapore, and Trinidad and Tobago. These
countries, although culturally and politically disparate, are all marked by histories
of internal religious and ethnic diversity, and their experiences of both coloniza-
tion and independence differ substantially from the Old Commonwealth. There
are a number of commonalities and connections between them, which sharpens
our understanding of multiculturalism, throwing into relief experiences elsewhere.
PA RT I : B R I T I SH M U LT IC U LT U R A L I SM
above but also stresses the inclusion of ethno-religious minority groups. It is this
latter form of multiculturalism that has been subject to rhetorical criticism and
policy rebalancing, but even here they find that British politicians of all stripes
define “Britishness” through a simultaneous appeal to political-institutional his-
tory and cultural diversity.
PA RT I I : T H E “O L D” C OM M O N W E A LT H
PA RT I I I : T H E “N EW ” C OM M O N W E A LT H
C O N C LU SIO N S
NOTES
1. For another discussion of the scope of multiculturalism, see Jacob T. Levy, The Multicultural-
ism of Fear (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), chap. 5. We share his view that in such accounts
“[u]sefulness, not truth, is the goal” (p. 125). Imposing a rigid typology of multicultural groups of rights
is unhelpful.
2. For a differing account of the relationship between the theory and practice of multiculturalism,
see Will Kymlicka, “The Essentialist Critique of Multiculturalism: Theories, Policies, Ethos,” in Varun
Uberoi and Tariq Modood, eds., Multiculturalism Rethought: Interpretations, Dilemmas, New Direc-
tions (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015), 209–49. Kymlicka’s organizing vocabulary in
“The Essentialist Critique” is different from ours, revolving around the distinction between philosophi-
cal approaches, actual policies, and real-world outcomes. By multicultural “policy,” he means govern-
ment responses to the full range of issues/groups covered by the political theory of multiculturalism. By
“practice,” he generally means the social outcomes of those policies, although he alleges his critics blur
the distinction between the results of government policies and the philosophical justifications behind
them (ibid., 225–29). In contrast, we use “policy” or “political practice” to mean government attempts
to integrate minority immigrants, and the accompanying public debates. We distinguish multicultural
policy/practice in this sense from the broader scope of the term “multiculturalism” in political theory.
Nevertheless, our commitment to philosophical holism means that at some points we use “practice” as
a more general contrast to “theory” in order to distinguish theoretical “webs of belief ” from the social
practices in which they are instantiated. Some of Kymlicka’s arguments in “The Essentialist Critique”
against the thinkers he calls “post-multiculturalist” turn on something like this broader distinction,
although we believe our defense of polycentricity is not caught by these. In any event, the different uses
of the terms are either specified or (we hope) clear from the context.
3. There is a clear historical correlation between the rise of liberal democracy and the development
of the modern nation-state, and long-standing theoretical connections traceable to, inter alia, J. S. Mill
(see “Of Nationality as Connected with Representative Government” in Mill, Considerations on Repre-
sentative Government [London: Parker, Son, & Bourn, 1861]). Many scholars have subsequently argued
that some version of the cultural nation plays a key role in the functioning of modern governance, e.g.,
Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner, and David Miller.
4. See Richard T. Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, “Liberal Democracy, Nationalism and Culture: Multi-
culturalism and Scottish Independence,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
18 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
21, no. 1 (2018): 65–86; Richard Ashcroft and Mark Bevir, “Pluralism, National Identity and Citizenship:
Britain after Brexit,” Political Quarterly 87 (2016): 355–59; and Mark Bevir, The Logic of the History of
Ideas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
5. See Mark Bevir, A Theory of Governance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013).
6. For instance, holism suggests that the application of existing theoretical frameworks is necessary
for ordering and analyzing historical data, even if these frameworks must remain open to revision in
the light of new information. Nevertheless, while we know that theory and practice continually remake
each other, the ways in which they do so are not always apparent. Historical investigation may help
to foreground these processes, thereby illuminating the dilemmas that have spurred reconstitution
of beliefs, the traditions those beliefs draw on, and the practices through which they are expressed.
Philosophical analysis of the normative issues raised by practical examples may thereby highlight over-
looked similarities between different concrete cases, suggesting a change in how we approach these in
practice. Inversely, a comparative historical examination may help to clarify the normative issues at
stake, thereby problematizing existing philosophical frameworks and pointing to the value of a new set
of philosophical questions and political arrangements.
7. These claims can be regarding the results of specific polices, laws, and discourses, or the broader
social consequences of cultural diversity. We therefore agree with Kymlicka that clear evidence of the
effects of multicultural policies in liberal democracies is “not easy to locate”, and is both “tentative” and
“preliminary” (Kymlicka, “Essentialist Critique,” 216–17). It is notable, however, that Kymlicka attempts
to assess the effects of multiculturalism on substate national minorities, indigenous peoples, and immi-
grant groups separately. We argue that this sort of typological separation of multicultural groups and
rights is unstable philosophically and ineffective in political practice, which indicates that assessment
of the real-world effects of multiculturalism should also be holistic, requiring both historical and philo-
sophical investigation.
8. The influence of practice on theory can be seen in Kymlicka’s later work (e.g., Multicultural Odys-
seys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], and
“Essentialist Critique”), which is more empirical and comparative than his earlier more philosophical
work (see his Liberalism, Community, and Culture [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989], and Mul-
ticultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995]).
9. For a series of “histories” of the multicultural debate see “Introduction” and “Part I: Trajectories”
of Anthony Simon Laden and David Owen, eds., Multiculturalism and Political Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007). These histories emphasize different aspects of the debates, but are
broadly compatible with each other and our account. While the connection to decolonization is widely
acknowledged, we differ by foregrounding the ways in which the intersection of liberal, colonial, and
multicultural governance conditioned the various forms of postwar multiculturalism, and in our sug-
gested response of polycentricity and pluralism.
10. See Christian Joppke, “The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy,”
British Journal of Sociology 55 (2004): 237–57.
11. Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner, Michel Foucault, Karl Polanyi, and Max Weber, all argue
for this in their different ways.
12. See Historicism and the Human Sciences in Victorian Britain, ed. Mark Bevir (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2017).
13. For convenience we use “United Kingdom” and “Britain” interchangeably, i.e., including North-
ern Ireland in both. We use “Old” and “New” Commonwealth to distinguish the white-settler colonies
of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand from other colonies in the Empire that were never intended
to be permanently settled by the British, and whose relationship to Great Britain was marked by more
nakedly extractive practices. These terms have functioned historically as thinly veiled proxies for race,
and their use is more common in Britain than elsewhere, but even though this volume problematizes
them, we find the distinction helpful as shorthand. For the reasons given in n. 27 below, we do not
generally include South Africa and Zimbabwe in the Old Commonwealth.
What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice? 19
14. Different theorists conceptualize the debates according to their particular concerns, but many
of these accounts are complementary rather than competing. For instance, multiculturalism is both
a debate within liberalism between strands of universalism and contextualism, and a debate between
liberalism and its communitarian, republican, and postcolonial critics. Multiculturalism is often asso-
ciated with the identarian “politics of difference,” yet this can be cast in terms of both “positional” and
“cultural” difference, as it is by Iris Marion Young (see her “Structural Injustice and the Politics of Dif-
ference,” in Laden and Owen, eds., Multiculturalism and Political Theory, 60–88). Nevertheless, it seems
generally accepted that the early association of multicultural political theory with the claims of minor-
ity groups that were not overtly cultural (e.g., women or those with disabilities) later shifted to a focus
on issues relating to immigrants and national minorities. The “politics of difference” is closely related
to the “politics of recognition,” which is broken down by Charles Taylor into the “politics of equal dig-
nity” and the “politics of difference” (Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutmann,
ed., Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1994]). In turn, multiculturalism as the “politics of recognition” is often contrasted—albeit controver-
sially—with the “politics of redistribution” more closely associated with liberal egalitarian and social
democratic theory (see Nancy Fraser’s “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a
‘Post-Socialist’ Age,” New Left Review 1, no. 12, July–August 1995, and Brian Barry’s Culture and Equal-
ity [Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2001]). Feminist theory arguably cuts across all of these debates, with
different theorists falling on different sides of the various divides. For useful introductions to, and
summaries of, the political theory literature along these lines see Laden and Owen, eds., Multicultural-
ism and Political Theory; Sarah Song, Justice, Gender and the Politics of Multiculturalism (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007); and Song, “Multiculturalism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-
losophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, accessed November 19, 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/
entries/multiculturalism.
15. See Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, and Culture and Multicultural Citizenship.
16. See Laden and Owen, eds., Multiculturalism and Political Theory, 7. Prominent respondents
to Kymlicka include Charles Taylor, Iris Marion Young, Susan Moller Okin, Brian Barry, Chandran
Kukathas, Bhikhu Parekh, James Tully, Roger Scruton, Jacob T. Levy, Seyla Benhabib, Kwame Anthony
Appiah, Jeremy Waldron, and Sarah Song.
17. See James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in the Age of Diversity (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), and Glen Sean Coulthard, Red Skin, White Masks: Rejecting the
Colonial Politics of Recognition (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2014).
18. “Context-sensitive” covers a broad range of theoretical approaches, ranging from utilizing his-
torical examples to illustrate abstract points to more radical approaches that use historical context
to generate normativity itself. For a fuller discussion, see Jacob T. Levy, “Contextualism, Constitu-
tionalism, and Modus Vivendi Approaches,” in Owen and Laden, eds., Multiculturalism and Political
Theory, 173–97. By “politically oriented” we mean approaches that prioritize actual political processes,
in particular democratic deliberation, in determining outcomes. For a helpful discussion, see Anthony
Simon Laden, “Negotiation, Deliberation, and the Claims of politics,” in Owen and Laden, eds., Mul-
ticulturalism and Political Theory, 198–217. For a fuller account of the effect of the contextual turn on
multicultural political theory, see Song “Multiculturalism,” and for an example of work that is sensitive
to both contextual and political strands without being conditioned by them, see her Justice, Gender and
the Politics of Multiculturalism.
19. The separation of groups and rights is central to Kymlicka’s theory of multiculturalism as set
out in his early work, and his influence over liberal multiculturalism and the wider debate has ensured
that his typology is ubiquitous in the literature. Some version of it also seems to be implicit in other
defenses of multiculturalism, such as Charles Taylor’s politics of recognition, which draws on Herderi-
an accounts of culture and defends the right to cultural survival in perpetuity. Taylor’s views on Quebec
clearly suppose that minority national groups have rights to some form of self-government that immi-
grant groups do not: see the report he co-authored with Gérard Bouchard, Report of the Commission
20 What is Postwar Multiculturalism in Theory and Practice?
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); and Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State: The United
States, Germany, and Great Britain (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
25. For the broader comparative work on policy, law, and governance, see e.g., Crawford Young,
Ethnic Diversity and Public Policy: A Comparative Inquiry (New York: Macmillan, 1998); and Augie
Fleras, The Politics of Multiculturalism: Multicultural Governance in Comparative Perspective (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009). For a sample of the vast array of detailed work in the social sciences,
see, e.g., Matthew Wright and Irene Bloemraad, “Is There a Trade-off between Multiculturalism and
Socio-Political Integration? Policy Regimes and Immigrant Incorporation in Comparative Perspec-
tive,” Perspectives on Politics 10, no. 1 (2012); John Sides and Jack Citrin, “European Opinion about
Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information,” British Journal of Political Science 37
(2007): 477–504; and Steven Weldon, “The Institutional Context of Tolerance for Ethnic Minorities: A
Comparative, Multilevel Analysis of Western Europe,” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 2
(2006): 331–49.
26. Arguably Multiculturalism in Asia by Kymlicka and He is a work in a similar vein.
27. South Africa and Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) can be considered part of the Old Common-
wealth, and were by British elites in the first half of the twentieth century. We have not, however,
considered them in this volume, for two main reasons. Firstly, their histories of institutionalized racial
apartheid were not aimed at integrating immigrants or granting genuine self-rule to minorities, but
rather attempts to control and oppress a majority racial “group.” They are therefore part of the broader
story of decolonization but do not sit easily within a discussion of genuine attempts at accommodating
cultural (or other) diversity (see Kymlicka in Liberalism, Community, and Culture, chap. 13). Secondly,
both of these countries left the Commonwealth in the 1960s, although they later rejoined (and in Zim-
babwe’s case, left again). Their forms of governance were therefore deeply isolationist for a long period
of the twentieth century and had very little overlap with the policies of bi- and multiculturalism devel-
oped in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
28. Since it is almost entirely populated by people of African descent, the island of Tobago (which
has a population of around 60,000, compared to Trinidad’s 1.3 million) is much less ethnically diverse
than Trinidad, and political/economic power is therefore overwhelmingly Trinidadian, as are the
dominant narratives of nationhood. We follow Viranjini Munasinghe in using “Trinidad,” “Indo-Trin-
idadian,” and “Afro-Trinidadian,” common shorthand that makes sense especially in a discussion of
multiculturalism.