2. 1
In late 2010, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, made a historic remark at a meeting of
young members of the Christian Democratic Union party. Merkel claimed that Germany’s
attempt to create a multicultural society had ‘utterly failed’ (Al Jazeera, 2010, n.p). She
explained that cultural groups were not actually content living side by side, and went on to say
that any immigrant in Germany needed to be integrated into the ‘German national culture’, rather
than accommodated by Germany’s welfare state (Al Jazeera, 2010, n.p). This led to a wave of
nationalistic pressure in the country and raised new debates about multiculturalism and cultural
plurality in Germany (Al Jazeera, 2010, n.p). It can be argued that this claim led many listeners
to perceive Germany as a culturally homogenous nation-state. However, at the heart of this
debate lies the question of whether Merkel and the German government are able to make such
claims based on current political and cultural circumstances. To be more specific, Germany is
the country in the European Union (EU) with the second highest percentage of immigrants for its
population. Germany is also facing a shortage of skilled labour due to its declining population,
which makes immigration a viable solution for the country. These circumstances challenge the
validity of Germany’s claim to be a culturally homogenous nation-state.
By analyzing Germany’s claim of having a homogenous cultural identity, it can be
demonstrated that Germany is not accepting the inevitability of cultural plurality, as defined by
Parekh. As a result, Germany is neglecting the benefits of building a cultural identity on a
realistic, rather than a constructed, foundation. Germany uses historical narratives, immigration
policies, and cultural perceptions to attempt to embody a homogenous national culture. However,
by using Parekh’s understanding of cultural plurality, it can be shown how examples of this
inevitable cultural plurality actually weaken the effects of these strategies. Therefore, by
considering alternative outlooks to the historical narrative, immigration policies, and cultural
3. 2
perceptions, this inevitable cultural plurality can uncover crucial pillars to aid the German
nation-state in the creation of a realistic cultural identity.
The German nation and state continue to use various strategies and pursue particular
ideologies to perpetuate a homogenous cultural identity in the country. To begin, Germany uses
a historical narrative as the foundation to its identity. The 20th
century was difficult for the
country due to the World Wars, which had a damaging effect on the national identity. Tharsen
describes that ‘after the defeat in World War I and after being humiliated by the Treaty of
Versailles, German citizens were eager to embrace the Nazi rhetoric because they perceived
themselves to be part of a superior Germanic race’ (Tharsen, 2005, n.p). However, after the
events of World War II, this actually further destroyed any positive forms of German identity.
So, in the post WWII era, ‘Germany struggled to reinvent its identity, particularly with
minorities’ (Tharsen, 2005, n.p). This shows that Germany has been motivated to define a strong
national identity that dissociates itself from a gruesome past. However, the problem with this
strategy is that the large immigrant population in Germany cannot connect with this narrative
because they are not directly involved with it. Regardless of these issue, Germany will continue
to pursue its national identity on this historical narrative because the history provides an explicit
example of what the country should not be. Also, Germany will not embrace plurality because it
may seem like a superficial attempt to reconcile the past, and not a way to build a positive
national identity.
The state has also used restrictive immigration policies in order to support its homogenous
identity. In 1913, the German Nationality Law stated that citizenship would not be granted based
on birth on German soil. This meant that second and third generation immigrants would not be
considered German and would remain outsiders, even though their family might have lived in
4. 3
Germany for generations (Panayi, 2004, p.470). Additionally, in the post WWII era, Germany
had an enormous economic boom that was initiated by national economic reconstruction;
however it lacked the necessary labour to support this boom. So, in the 1960s and 1970s,
Germany introduced the guest worker program, where immigrants were given permission to live
and work in the country temporarily (Eckhardt, 2007, p.237). The political consensus was that
these immigrants would leave Germany once the economic growth reached a plateau, but the
reality was that the majority of immigrants remained in the country and tried to reunite with their
families (Eckhardt, 2007, p.236). The government forced these immigrants to integrate quickly
into the national culture, under threat of deportation (Eckhardt, 2007, p.236). This shows that the
German government considered immigrants as a production resource, limiting their agency as
individuals, rather than accepting these groups as a part of the national identity. It was not until
1999 that there was any significant change to the immigration policies. This was when
Chancellor Schroder passed a new Nationality Law stating that ‘children born in Germany from
2000 of resident foreign parents automatically assumed German nationality’ (Panayi, 2004,
p.470). It was still made very clear that the current German government would not become a
human assistance world office. All people would need to be integrated and qualified in German
culture, regardless of their immigration demands (Jura, 2012, n.p). This proves that, though there
have been some changes to immigration policies, Germany attempts to embody a homogenous
culture by continuing to restrict immigration in order to control the construction of culture in the
country.
The German government is able to control the construction of culture by allowing
nationalist cultural perceptions to flourish in the society. As a result, the government can
encourage a homogenous culture by encouraging the latent nationalist understandings of
5. 4
Germany. Ortloff explains that ‘traditionally, citizenship laws, policies and practices have
institutionalized discrimination against non-Germans on the basis of the conceptually unclear
standard of being German’ (Ortloff, 2011, p.138). This means that ‘Germans’ would use their
individual perceptions of their culture to distinguish between ‘German’ and ‘non-German’. The
difficulty for immigrants is that the varied ‘German’ perceptions give no clear identity or
ideology with which they can associate, which implicitly ostracizes these individuals. As a
result, Germany would be able to maintain a homogenous culture by separating those who
unconsciously understand what ‘being German’ means. Specifically, Ortloff finds schoolteachers
perpetuate these latent understandings. He found that ‘while the teachers did engage with both
multicultural and global citizenship ideas, they did so in a manner that created limits on both
concepts’ (Ortloff, 2011, p.147). This limit is created by the national identity understanding,
because teachers are teaching based on their personal perspectives. Ortloff ultimately finds that
any policy reforms that Germany will make, will have limited impact on the individuals, unless
their cultural horizons or education can change (Ortloff, 2011, p.139). This means that Germany
can confidently embody a homogenous cultural identity, as long as the latent nationalist
perceptions are not challenged. This becomes another strategy that the nation-state can use to
avoid the inevitability of cultural plurality.
Further analysis shows that the validity of these strategies can actually be dismissed
because the forces of cultural plurality are already affecting Germany. Parekh’s understanding of
cultural plurality can be used as a definition to show how plurality’s forces are present in the
country. First, one of Parekh’s major characteristics of plurality is that culture cannot be
considered static (Parekh1, 2006, p.77). Culture needs to grow with changing times and adapt to
social forces in the community and around the world. Therefore, it is important that Germany
6. 5
does not continue to use a historical narrative to define its identity, because new demands on the
country have been revealed and the country needs to respond to them. Particularly, though
Germany claims to be a non-immigrant society, the political and cultural landscape has changed.
Germany is facing a shortage of skilled labour as the population is declining, and has the second
highest percentage of immigrants in the EU (Al Jazeera, 2010, n.p). Germany has responded to
these changes in a small way by creating a ‘green card’ immigration system, allowing
immigrants with technological knowledge and skills to have special immigration permission in
order to support the technological boom of the last decade (Jacoby, 2011, n.p). It can be argued
that this is an example of Germany submitting to the inevitability of cultural plurality as it
becomes increasingly apparent in the country.
Parekh further explains that a single culture should not determine the lives of individuals
(Parekh1, 2006, p.78). It can be argued that, as discourses of globalization grow, individuals
become more aware of global interconnection, which in turn leads to more awareness about
cultural tolerance. This means that, if Germany continues to use restrictive immigration policies
to promote a homogenous identity, these policies will be perceived as increasingly racist and
discriminatory. Tharsen claimed that ‘official nationalism, [which is defined through the state’s
laws and policies] and popular nationalism, [which is defined through cultural productions and
public debates] deliberately ignored a longstanding history of immigration to Germany in order
to uphold the racist myth that the ethnicity of all Germans was white’ (Tharsen, 2005, n.p).
Ultimately, the article suggests that racism has become institutionalized through German politics
and has become latent in the individual citizens’ cultural horizons. Moreover, in an article about
immigrant ghettos, it is explained that there has been no great tangible multicultural
transformation for citizens in Germany, which has led the society to see European integration
7. 6
through the Union as a failed experiment (Stehle, 2012, p.170). The author further explains that
this leaves minorities feeling they need to form, and live in, ghettos, because social security
cannot be guaranteed (Stehle, 2012, p.170). By restricting immigration in Germany, the state
fuels the perception that cultural plurality is impossible which in turn forces immigrants into
ghettos. These ghettos create a cultural hierarchy where the cultures within them are seen as
inferior according to an underlying ‘German’ culture, and this demonstrates discriminatory
tendencies. Relating to Parekh, the discriminatory tendencies demonstrated through restrictive
immigration policies unfairly determine the lives of immigrants, which cultural plurality would
avoid. However, because the cultural horizons of citizens are changing, as these discriminatory
tendencies are being recognized, it can be argued that plurality is an inevitable force in Germany.
Cultural plurality for Parekh also includes the point that culture cannot be disassociated
from the wider political and economic structures of society (Parekh1, 2006, p.78). Cultural
plurality includes all spheres of society because each sphere has an impact on the others.
Specifically, culture can, and should, impact political decisions. However, because Germany is
trying to embody a homogenous culture, it tries to separate the impact of immigration on
German culture from the impact on the economy. For example, Germany has a shortage of
skilled labour and needs immigration to support the economy, but the government is adamant
that Germany not become an immigrant society. It appears the German government is trying to
achieve two opposing goals, rather than considering the interconnection between the political
and cultural spheres, as a plural society would. These opposing goals will be forced to a
compromise through plurality’s forces, because Germany is a prominent member in the EU. The
EU is considered the most successful cultural integration project in history. The monetary union,
with a single currency, and economic integration, with complete trade liberalization, has led to
8. 7
success for member countries (Issing, 2012, n.p). Issing claims that this success will only be able
to continue if there is a deeper political unity, because this union cannot be built on euros and
cents alone (Issing, 2012, n.p). In this sense, political unity suggests that parallel political
ideologies are needed to facilitate the union and to ensure that members can take advantage of
the system. Specifically, political unity would further liberalize immigration. This would be
crucial to economic prosperity because labour would be free to find more jobs and fill labour
shortages within member countries. This demonstrates again that cultural plurality is inevitable
for Germany because it is a prominent EU member, and it can be assumed that the country will
want to benefit from the EU’s economic successes. The only way to ensure EU success is to be
open to cultural plurality by aligning political ideologies and accepting a more supranational
citizenship for immigrants.
It is quite clear that Germany’s attempts to maintain a culturally homogenous identity are
avoiding the inevitable force of plurality in the country. Germany should accept this ‘plural
reality’ because it will provide necessary pillars to develop a genuine cultural identity. First,
cultural plurality can provide a stronger and more representative foundation for Germany’s
identity. There is no value for Germany to base its identity in a historical narrative, because the
changing circumstances of the culture, like the mass influx of immigrants in the past 50 years,
limit the validity of this narrative. It is important for the state to be looking forward and using the
most current narrative and circumstances as the root to identity. This way an identity can be
created that really considers the needs of a diversity of individuals, rather than focusing on
something with which only a small portion of the population can associate. It is not to say that
history should be disregarded for having any impact on the cultural identity, rather it should not
9. 8
be the focal point. The identity should be based on a more tangible narrative, not a constructed
one, by being open to the contemporary political, cultural, and albeit plural landscape.
Second, because cultural plural identity accepts a diversity of cultures, more individuals
will be willing to associate with such an accepting identity. If Germany’s identity were to be
plural, it would not mean that the identity would not exist, just that its major characteristic would
be diversity, rather than something extreme, like physical Aryan traits. As Parekh explains,
humans are culturally embedded and this fact is the only universal characteristic that all humans
share (Parekh2, 2006, p.120). This leads him to claim that individuals desire to be a part of a
cultural community and that they need this form of greater association to help define themselves
as humans (Parekh2, 2006, p.124). Therefore, individuals in Germany desire to be associated
with a Germanic identity, and this association will be much deeper and more valuable if
individuals can feel accepted, not discriminated against due to diverse backgrounds. Parekh also
defines cultural plurality as being able to allow for internal tensions between cultures in a state
(Parekh1, 2006, p.78). This point further supports having a plural identity because tension and
competition is what leads to innovation, and, in the case of culture, innovation can lead to new or
expanded cultural horizons. New cultural horizons could enlighten individuals and lead to more
accepting or cooperative relationships between diverse cultures or even nation-states. Overall, if
Germany could accept a plural identity, it would encourage citizens to embrace an alternative
Germanic identity and would unleash the possibility for cultural innovation, allowing Germany
to build a more genuine and accepting Germanic identity.
Lastly, cultural plurality will provide a functional framework for this more contemporary
cultural identity. As Parekh explained, culture cannot be dissociated from the wider economic
10. 9
and political spheres (Parekh1, 2006, p.78). This means that pursuing a plural identity would
weave cultural understandings with political policies. This will develop more national unity,
because this type of political framework will connect all levels of the societies, creating a more
holistic national direction and potentially benefiting the operation of the nation state. For
example, if the German government could be open to having a plural identity, then it could
comfortably encourage immigrants to fill its labour deficit rather than letting its determination
for a homogenous identity prevent it from solving an important economic issue. Also, by
weaving the cultural and political spheres, cultural production will be based on political realities,
which will not allow for exaggerated or nationalistic myths. In the same vein, political decisions
will be made by considering the diversity of cultures within the country, which will increase the
benefit of these decisions to more individuals. Therefore, cultural plurality will bring culture and
politics together to create a functional framework for a plural society, which, in Germany’s case,
can help to develop a genuine and more universal cultural identity.
It is interesting to consider Germany’s attempt to maintain a homogenous cultural identity
when there is such potential benefit for the adoption of a plural identity. Despite this possibility,
Germany has been able to perpetuate a homogenous identity by focusing their identity on an
exclusive historical narrative, by continuing to condone historical and restrictive immigration
policies, and by allowing latent and national cultural perspectives to implicitly exclude ‘non-
Germans’. However, by considering Germany’s labour shortage, acknowledging the general
growth in individuals’ cultural horizons, and highlighting Germany’s position in the EU, it is
possible to see that cultural plurality is inevitable for the country. It is important to realize that
plurality does not have to be the demise to a Germanic identity. Cultural plurality will offer the
foundation, citizen support, and functional framework for a more realistic and genuine cultural
11. 10
identity. Encouraging a homogenous identity by claiming that multiculturalism has failed in
Germany is not valid. The German nation and state need to accept the inevitability of cultural
plurality and be open to the opportunities and benefits it can provide to Germany.
12. 11
References
Al-Jazeera English (2010), “Has Multiculturalism Failed in Germany?”, Inside Story, Oct. 10,
available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdCNmr3XEvg
Eckhardt, F. (2007) Multiculturalism in Germany: from ideology to pragmatism - and back?
National Identities, 9(3): 235-245
Issing, O. (2012) The European experiment: the interplay between economic success and cultural
diversity. The International Economy, 26(4): 54(4)
Jacoby, T. (2011) Germany’s immigration dilemma: how can Germany attract the workers it
needs? Foreign Affairs, 90(2): 8
Jura, C. (2012) Multiculturalism--a confusing European approach. Journal of Politics and Law,
5(2): 107(9)
Ortloff, DH (2011) Moving the borders: multiculturalism and global citizenship in the German
social studies classroom. Educational Research, 53(2): 137-149
Panayi, P. (2004) The evolution of multiculturalism in Britain and Germany: a historical survey
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(5): 466-480
Parekh, B.1(2006) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory –
Chapter 2 2nd Edition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Parekh, B.2 (2006) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory –
Chapter 4 2nd Edition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stehle, M. (2012) White ghettos: The 'crisis of multiculturalism' in post-unification Germany.
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(2): 167-181
Tharsen, L. (2005) Ethnic nationalism in Germany. Philosophia Africana, 8(2): 117(26)
