유럽사회에서 다문화정책의 현황과 관용의 한계 －프랑스의 라이시떼와 독일의 민주적 헌정주의를 중심으로－

Abstract

We are truly entering the era of multiculturalism. However, we may have an ambivalent attitude towards multiculturalism as well as globalization. On the one hand, multiculturalism encourages the optimistic hope of world citizen society beyond nation-state. On the other hand, conservative swing and xenophobia (especially Islamophobia in Europe), which are also shown in several physical conflicts such as the civil unrest in French suburbs and recent terror in Norway, are casting a bleak outlook on multicultural future. These conflicts, which are deeply connected to multiculturalism and racial diversity in Europe, request us to re-examine the European democracy and the essence of so-called ‘True Europe’ or ‘European values.’ In this current situation, the main purpose of this paper is to examine viable toleration understanding in multicultural era, and illustrate it by exploring toleration theory and multicultural policy in Europe. This paper first outlines briefly the social integration policy in the Western Europe, especially in France and Germany. French model of integration policy is based on Republicanism, and the essence of this model is embodied in the concept of ‘laїcité’ as French identity, which can be distinguished from other forms of secularism. German model of integration seems to be based on democratic constitutionalism as illustrated by Habermas regarding religious pluralism in a democratic polity. There are significant differences between these two countries in the cultural, religious, and historical backgrounds; however, we might find similarity with regard to integration policy towards immigrants. In other words,both ‘laїcité’ and ‘democratic constitutionalism’ might function as ‘threshold of toleration,’ which shows the dynamics of integration of immigrants. If the integration policy is operated by assimilationist strategy, it would aims homogenization or monoculturalism in real terms. To analyze this, we may examine the heated debate of wearing hijab in both countries. The assimilationist integration policy might blind the fact that hijab is not just a symbol of oppression, but a symbol of resistance and emancipation in Islamic history and culture, and that Muslim women function as cultural mediator and cultural translator in the middle of cultural conflict between the Europe and the Islam. In this respect, we need to try mapping the synonyms regarding toleration. In this paper, we could set up some layers of toleration such as indifference, recognition, integration, and embracement to shape up the pluralistic version of toleration. Then, this paper will focus on suggesting the proper way to understand toleration coping with racial and cultural diversity, based on legal anthropology and its pluralistic perspective. I suggest that legal pluralism can be understood as a nexus of three elements: ‘plurality’, ‘toleration’, and ‘variability.’ If different and diverse values and norms (‘plurality’) give up a strong notion of homogenization and embrace each other (‘toleration’), they may experience the possibilities to change through continuous interaction among them (‘variability’). This leads to the serious debate regarding the relationship between ‘tolerating self’ and ‘tolerated others,’ that is, ‘intersubjective identity.’ The active version of toleration from pluralistic perspective requests intersubjective and interrelated self, and should be based on mutual understanding and mutual respect.