Sport and multiculturalism : an European perspective

Sport and multiculturalism: a European perspective Ian P. Henry Loughborough University The Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (CEO-UAB) publishes works aimed to facilitate their scientific discussion. The inclusion of this text in this series does no limit future publication by its author who reserves the integrity of his rights. This publication may not be reproduced, neither partially nor totally, without the author’s permission. This text corresponds to the inaugural conference of the 2005/06 academic course of the Centre d’Estudis Olímpics (CEO-UAB) held on the 26th October 2005. Ref. WP102 Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 2 To refer to this document you can use the following reference: Henry, Ian P. (2005): Sport and multiculturalism: a European perspective [online article]. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB. [Consulted: dd/mm/yy] <http://olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp102_eng.pdf> [Date of publication: 2005] Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 3 1. Introduction The European Union has its origins in a recognition of the importance, not merely of economic and political cooperation but also of the need for a cultural pluralism based on respect of difference, the promotion of equality, and tolerance, and an opposition to discriminatory practices. The importance of respect for cultural diversity has, if anything, grown in the period since the Treaty of Rome as the processes of globalisation have accelerated, and the EU expanded. However, while states adopt anti-discriminatory legislation, nevertheless intolerance of cultural difference and racism, continue to be experienced in many communities. Within this context a range of fields of action have been identified which can help to promote intercultural understanding and mutual respect within and between communities, including legislation (on human rights, political rights, residency, nationality etc.), education, and cultural policy. Sport is one such area of policy activity. However though claims about the use of sport for social integration purposes are widely made, such claims are rarely made with the support of evidence or detailed analysis of what social integration is, or how it may be achieved. The need to address this issue was the primary motivation on the part of the European Commission DG Education and Culture in commissioning a study from the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy and PMP Consultants to evaluate the ways in which sport has been used to reduce intercultural tensions and to map out the methods used and benefits claimed for such policy goals in each of the 25 Member States. The study was submitted to the Commission in September 2004 (Amara, Aquilina, Henry, & Taylor, 2004) and considered by the Council of Ministers in September 2005. I will draw on aspects of this research, together with a second project on sport as a vehicle of social inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers also funded by the European Commission, this time as part of the European Year of Education through Sport (Amara et al., 2005), and finally I will draw more briefly on a project undertaken for the IOC on Women and Leadership in the Olympic Movement (Henry et al., 2004). The presentation will be structured around addressing three themes:  The first theme relates to the question of how concepts of multiculturalism or interculturalism, nationality and citizenship can be linked to sports policy. This is essentially a conceptual ground clearing exercise but draws on some empirical data from the first of the studies referred to earlier.  The second addresses the question of how we can conceptualise (and therefore evaluate) the benefits which might be claimed to accrue from sporting projects in terms of multicultural or integration policy.  The third theme relates to the issue of gender, multiculturalism and sports policy. 2. Concepts of multiculturalism, interculturalism and their relationship to sports policy In undertaking the study of sport and multicultural dialogue in the Member States of the EU, three stages in information gathering were employed. The first was simply to seek baseline information in terms of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the populations; the nature of the systems of sports provision; and the existence and nature of sports projects targeted at the social integration of cultural minorities. The second Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 4 stage was to identify what, if any, evaluation had taken place in regard to these schemes: and the third stage involved a focus on four case study states, France, Germany, Poland and the UK, where more detailed analysis of particular projects was undertaken. One of the significant challenges which this task presented was how to categorise the different policy approaches adopted. In most cases there was little explanation of what the policy goals were of such projects and how they related to policies of integration, multiculturalism and the like. The task of establishing how effective such policies might be inevitably therefore required an account of the competing philosophies of multiculturalism. In the literature on multiculturalism and policy perhaps the commonest distinction made is between policies of integration on the one hand; and assimilation on the other. Integration in this context is defined as the process whereby a minority group adapts itself to a majority society and is accorded equality of rights and treatment; while the term assimilation is used in relation to the ‘absorption’ of ethnic minority and immigrant population cultures into the cultures and practices of the host society. Assimilation thus implies both acculturation in the adoption of mainstream cultural norms, and deculturation, the gradual loss of indigenous cultural distinctiveness. Different concepts of integration and / or assimilation are bound up with the way that different states understand national identity, and these concepts are a product of the processes of nation-building, democratisation, and the experience of international relations, particularly colonial and post-colonial relations. The decision to focus on France, Germany, Poland and the UK was based on the historically distinctive core concepts of national identity and citizenship with which three at least of these states have traditionally been associated. The origins of modern French thought in relation to national identity derive from the French Revolution with the replacement of allegiance to a monarchy by the voluntary adoption of republican values of freedom and equality. Nationalism was an expression of the willingness of groups with differing cultural, linguistic, religious or ethnic backgrounds to accept a common political project guaranteeing universal rights for all. Acceptance of the political project however also required acceptance of norms of citizenship, organised around a secular and unified notion of French identity. Thus just as languages spoken regionally, such as Breton, were suppressed in the 19th and early 20th century, the cultural symbols of ethnic or religious difference are banished from public life by the French state in the contemporary context (as in the recent case of discussions about the wearing of the veil in schools, or in other public institutions such as sports centres). While the French notion of a national culture depends upon shared political will, the German tradition of nationalism, stemming from Herder and Fichte, emphasises nationhood as shared culture, language and ethnos. While for the French shared culture was a product of political nationalism, in the German tradition political nationalism was seen as the natural consequence of a shared national culture. Until relatively recently the naturalisation of non-Germans (such as the Turkish minority) was the exception, though social rights (such as access to welfare services) were widely available to immigrant groups. Thus social citizenship rather than political rights of being a German national were what was available to such groups. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 5 The implication of both of these views of national identity is that ‘foreign’ cultures should not be ‘accommodated’ within the national culture but rather should be assimilated. In contrast to these two models, the concept of multiculturalism is most clearly associated with the liberal pluralist state which promotes the individual freedoms of its members, fostering the potential for cultural diversity. The existence of national minorities within the borders of the UK state may well have fostered cultural pluralism, but the colonial experience and the associated notion of British subjecthood also fuelled such pluralism with Commonwealth immigrants (at least until the late 1960s) having the right to British citizenship. Political rights in the British context were thus the product, not of hereditary membership of a particular group (as in the German case), or of the voluntary political adherence to the nation (as in the French case), but rather by reference to territorial residence. While the political circumstances of contemporary Britain, France and Germany may well have shifted from these traditional positions, with the liberalisation of naturalisation rights particularly for second and third generation “foreign” inhabitants in Germany, and the tightening of access to citizenship in Britain, nevertheless one might expect to see a residual propensity to adopt multicultural, or integrationist policy stances in Britain with a parallel assimilationist tendency on the part of the German and French states. The Polish context is somewhat different. Social organisation and thus questions of nationality and citizenship were constructed under very different circumstances and under the communist system, the importance of immigration, ethnicity and of national minorities was minimised. Poland like other Acceding states is still in process of working through its approach to citizenship. However in drawing up its new internal administrative boundaries the significance of national minorities has been recognised. This schematic representation of the different approaches to national identity and citizenship is significant for the discussion of multiculturalism and sport, and figure 1 maps out the development of sports policy for minorities onto these competing notions of integration and assimilation and the traditions of national identity and citizenship. This figure highlights five policy approaches, three of which might be most closely associated with pluralism and multiculturalism and two with assimiliationist concerns with social cohesion and a unitary national culture. In each of these policy approaches I want to tease out the values which underpin them, their relationship to mainstream political values and programmes, and their implications for sports policy. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 6 Policy domains of sport & culture Pluralism / Diversity / Multiculturalism Cohesion / Unitary National Culture General Philosophy Policy Approach Political Orientation Sports Policy Examples Interculturalism e.g. funding cultural sporting exchanges Separate but equal development Communitarianism e.g. direct funding of ethnic minority sports associations Protection of political minorities e.g. separate parties for minorities Assimilation of minorities into mainstream parties e.g. sport as a vehicle for tackling problems of general social exclusion, or urban renewal. Noninterventionist ‘Assimilationist’ / policies target general disadvantage Figure 1: Ideal Typical Representation of Sport / Cultural Policy Orientations Homogeneous population / conservative orientation No perceived need for action Liberal individualism e.g. reliance on commercial and voluntary sectors to meet social needs Market pluralism The first of the pluralist approaches is that of interculturalism, a situation which describes the equal valuation placed on cultures which are brought together to produce a new cultural mix. Such a cultural approach is consistent with the politics of communitarianism (Etzioni, 1993; Tam, 1998). Such a political position values, amongst other things, diversity as a cultural and political resource. A typical sports policy associated with such thinking would be the promotion of cultural interchange between sporting groups. The second of the pluralist approaches refers to what French commentators refer to in a pejorative manner as ‘communautarisme’, meaning separate but equal development. Such a philosophy is evident in political terms in the protection of political minorities, for example in providing reserved Parliamentary seats as quotas. In sports policy terms this approach would be manifest in a policy of funding ethnic minority sports associations. The final multicultural policy approach might be termed market pluralism, associated with the classical liberal individualism of the Anglo-Saxon model of the State. Sports policy in such a context would involve the fostering of commercial and voluntary sectors as being the optimal deliverers of diversity in sporting opportunity. The first of the two ‘unitary’ policy approaches is thus described as assimilationist in that policies are targeted at general conditions (such as social exclusion) and not at serving the needs of particular ethnic minorities. The political orientation associated with this philosophy sees the absorption of minorities into mainstream parties and of minority interests into mainstream policy programmes. Sports policy approaches consistent with this approach address generalist problems such as the use of sport in combating social exclusion, rather than focusing on specific target groups. The final policy approach, non-intervention, stems from the perception by politicians of a homogenous population. Politics in such contexts may tend to be conservative as is also the case with sports policies, Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 7 since with an homogeneous population there will be little perceived need for targeted policy developments. Having mapped out these five ideal types, this allowed us to identify broadly where the policy approaches in relation to sport and multiculturalism of individual nation states of the European Union might be located. Figure 2 summarises the results of this process. The figure is organised around two dimensions. On the horizontal axis is the level of homogeneity of the population. This is assessed qualitatively rather than operationalised quantitatively because of the difficulties of finding common bases for conceptualisation and measurement. For example, Britain and France have considerable proportions of their populations from ethnic origins derived from their colonial past from North Africa and from the Indian sub-continent and the Caribbean respectively. However, in the French case census data do not record ethnic origin – but describe all citizens as simply French by definition. The vertical axis assigns countries to the categories of multicultural, intercultural or assimilationist policy. Here again some caution in interpretation has to be exercised since as Christina Boswell (2003) argues positions on multiculturalism and assimilation “should not be seen as unified or fixed. One can discern multiple traditions of thought on citizenship and identity within most states, and it is not always a foregone conclusion which concept will come to dominate policy when states are confronted with new immigration challenges” (p.76). Arrows upwards or downwards in Figure 2 imply a tendency for movement towards a change in policy orientation. Sweden Figure 2: Ideal Typical Location of National Sports Policies for Minorities Interculturalism / Multicultural / integration policies concerned with diversity ‘Assimilationist’ / policies target general disadvantage Noninterventionist Homogeneity Heterogeneity Level of Homogeneity of population Ireland Italy Denmark Greece Poland / Hungary Portugal Malta Cyprus Slovenia Estonia Latvia Lithuania Slovakia Czech Republic Finland UK Belgium Germany France Netherlands Spain Austria Luxembourg With reference to Figure 2 the first group of countries in the upper right hand box have actively embraced (at least in terms of policy rhetoric) multicultural policies and have culturally diverse populations, and indeed two of the three (Belgium and Finland) have two official languages. If we consider the case of the UK – its population can be described as heterogeneous by European standards. Not only has it a strong tradition of receiving labour migrants from the Commonwealth in the 20th century, and before this from Ireland and Eastern Europe in the 19th century, but also it has its own national minorities in Scotland, Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 8 Wales and Northern Ireland. In policy terms the participation of ethnic minorities has been a very visible issue, with policies under the general theme of Race Equality being developed from the 1960s onwards. A plethora of governmental and non-governmental agencies provide general services targeted at ethnic minorities, together with sporting initiatives such as Sporting Equals, UK Sports Equality and Diversity Strategy and so on. In recent years, however, the British Labour Government has sought to be seen taking strong action on immigration and asylum seekers to the criticism of its own supporters. In similar vein Trevor Phillips, Chairman for the Commission on Racial Equality on 3 April argued that Britain’s policy of multiculturalism had gone too far, and that there was a need to ensure that a core of British values remained intact (Curick, 2004). Thus there evidence in some areas of government and the quasi-government sector, of a shift from dominantly multicultural or intercultural positions to the monocultural / assimilationist position with an emphasis on protecting cohesion rather than diversity. The second group of countries fall in the middle segment on the right hand side of the diagramme, having culturally diverse populations but a history of largely assimilationist thinking. An example from this category is the case of France. Heterogeneous by virtue of immigration, but also with national minorities (Corsican, Basque, Catalan, Breton, Romany), the dominant philosophy is, as we have argued, is assimilationist, so policy measures in all domains will be seen as ‘general’ in their target rather than specifically focusing on given minorities. However, the spatial or social concentration of ethnic minorities in particular contexts (parts of the city, or among groups such as “les jeunes en difficulté) means that services may be de facto delivered largely to ethnic minority elements by virtue of their spatial or social concentration. Lionel Arnaud (1999) illustrates this point excellently in his book Politiques Sportives et Minoritiés Ethniques (1999). In general if not in sporting terms however we can see some movement in the direction of multiculturalism in French society. Examples include the establishment of the first elected Islamic congress, representative of different Muslim communities in France (Islam of France), and the opening of the first Islamic high school Ibn Ruchd in the region of Lille. Furthermore, at the political level, the nomination of Tokia Saifi, French of Algerian origin, in the role of secrétaire d’Etat au Développement durable, Hamlaoui Mekachera as secrétaire d’Etat au Anciens Combattants, and Aïssa Dermouche the ex-director of l’Ecole Supérieure de Commerce de Nantes, as a préfet of the region of Jura. The case of the Netherlands is interesting since it has shown a distinctive shift in policy terms. With a relatively heterogeneous population by virtue of its colonial past, until the late 1990s it pursued a relatively multiculturalist strategy in line with its traditional pluralist, pillarised, political system. However by the late 1990s sympathy for such an approach was on the wane. The right made political gains (for example under Pim Fortijn) and local authorities began to reduce activities and resources spent on multicultural sports initiatives. What had been the twin objectives of the integration of ethnic minorities into mainstream Dutch sports provision, on the one hand, and the promotion of ethnic sporting groups on the other, gave way to a simple emphasis n the former approach. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 9 The third group of countries in the middle left hand segment of the figure, are those with relatively homogeneous populations, but which have adopted some assimilationist policies in sport for ethnic minorities. Both Poland and Hungary in their post-communist guises have given greater attention to issues of multiculturalism, though both are relatively homogeneous (in both cases ethnic populations make up around 3% of the total population). Both governments have shown some willingness to promote multicultural initiatives in education and culture. The Hungarian government support for example for initiatives with the Roma population in sport and in education reflect this. In Poland the examples cited for state support of different cultures are through religious sporting organisations though religious identity may be taken as an operational indicator of ethnicity. The fourth group of countries is made up of the three small states of Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia declare themselves as relatively homogeneous though membership of the EU may add to immigration pressures. Cyprus is something of a special case. The response to our questions related to the situation in the Greek community, but the possible reuniting of the Greek and Turkish populations seems likely to provide the need for a new response, since effectively a large national minority will be evident and the relations between the two communities in cultural terms (as well as political and economic terms) will become critical. The final group of countries is made up of former Eastern bloc states, with relatively heterogeneous populations, but with little or no intervention in relation to sports policy for ethnic minorities. There is nevertheless some variation between states. Each of the Baltic States has its own political and cultural trajectories, though in terms of the important issues relating to inter-ethnic relations, the situations in Latvia and Estonia have been quite different from that in Lithuania. While Estonia’s population consists of 61.5% Estonians and 30.3% Russians, and Latvia’s consists of 52% Latvians and 34% Russians, Lithuania’s population is 79.6% Lithuanian and 9.4% Russian together with 7.0% of Poles. In addition, upon restoration of independence, the Lithuanian Government offered free choice of citizenship to all permanent residents except Soviet military personnel and their families and the vast majority opted for Lithuanian citizenship. In Estonia and Latvia the situation is very different. Instead of offering citizenship to all residents the Estonian and Latvian Governments restricted automatic citizenship to those who had held it before the Soviet occupation and their direct descendants. Although citizenship laws have subsequently been liberalised to some degree in both countries, largely as a product of external pressures, this has not been without difficulties (in Latvia for example a national referendum on the liberalising legislation was forced by opposition), and as late as July 2004 a Russian sponsored resolution to the meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe was debated, which criticised both countries for failing to implement legislation. In these circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that in both of these states, there is little evidence that the use of sport for integration has been developed. In both cases, and in particular in Latvia, the fear of eventual domination of a Russian speaking population (emotively referred to as ‘statistical genocide’) has led to an emphasis on linguistic and cultural assimilation. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 16 women’s sporting dress, in the responses of three of our four female Muslim interviewees. Of these three interviewees, one is from a North African state, the second from an Asian country, and the third is from the Middle East. Our respondent from North Africa had been a world figure in her sport, and had experienced no problem in wearing the athletic clothing of the era, with the only criterion of concern being to allow freedom of movement to maximise performance. No I have never had any opposition. I had millions of letters of support when I won which surprised me. Not even one letter of criticism. And I even had letters, let’s say, from Saudi Arabia from all the Gulf States, all of North Africa. It was incredible millions of letters, thousands and I am still keeping them. I have never had any negative thoughts from anyone concerning my attire. And I surprised the international media when they saw me and they said – Oh, she is a [nationality], and a Muslim – where is her veil?” and I think when you have a strong belief it is in your heart it is not in your look. … And even now the race I organise you see a large range of different categories of women, those who are veiled, those who are unveiled, and it’s interesting. (Interview 22, Africa) By contrast the Asian interviewee had actively considered whether the wearing of athletic apparel contravened religious requirements to maintain modesty and had in fact sought the advice of a central religious authority. A lot of Non-Muslims also asked me … and I think that, quite often the Muslim women themselves and even the Muslim men also do not understand the Shariah or the Islamic Law, … … as I said in netball, our girls wear short skirts because that is more convenient, but I did also ask, because I was a bit worried, whether what the girls are doing could be wrong for them in Islam, for them and for me, because I had been with them, I did ask some of the persons who are knowledgeable in Islam, [names Islamic scholar], before he became the religious advisor to the Prime Minister, he was a lecturer at [a local university] before, he said “the most important thing is what is your intention, if your intention is to wear your brief costume so that you can play better and the idea is to win, so that Muslim women could win, then it is otherwise permissible, but, if you wear the short skirts and all that, and the idea is to show off your beautiful legs and all that then of course it is not permissible, it is haram. Now if the men come and watch and they have say, dirty things on their minds, that is their problem, that is their sins, not yours”. So I was quite happy, so what we do is, we tell our girls, they wear the skirt when they are playing and when they are in the arena The moment they go out of the arena, they put on their track bottom ….(Interview 21, Asia) The third Muslim woman to be interviewed was well known for her very public espousal of separate sports competition for women, performing a leading role in promoting the Islamic Countries Women Sports Federation and the Islamic Countries Women’s Sports Games. These Games held three times since their inauguration in 1993 in Iran, provide Muslim women with the opportunity to participate in international competition by holding events in an all-female environment. For this interviewee, there could be no Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 17 compromise on the issue of wearing of modest covering for the body in public, and separate competition therefore offers the only possibility for Muslim women’s participation. Translator: After 1989 when she was involved in the NOC as Vice-President, she thought that a women’s organisation was necessary and so she founded the organisation for women. The main reason for this was due to the problem of [her country’s] women and their clothes during sporting activities. There was a gap between the Islamic countries and other areas of the world in sport. She was given support through the Olympic Committee. She had to travel to Kuwait and Mr Samaranch was there and he gave her support, inviting her to be present in the decision for a women’s organisation.(Interview 15, Asia) Thus the positions adopted on this issue are by no means uniform. Such variety lends support to the criticism of positions adopted by commentators such as Huntington (1996) who seek to portray civilisations in terms of monolithic ideologies. Critics such as Bassam Tibi (2001) have underlined the heterogeneous nature of religiosity in Muslim populations, and such heterogeneity is clearly exemplified by our interviewees. Azza Karam (1998) outlines three ideal typical feminisms in the context of Egyptian society (while acknowledging that the label ‘feminist’ may not be one which is readily accepted by some groups of Muslim women despite their common concern to enhance the lives of women). The first of Karam’s types is that of Islamist feminism which she identifies with “Islamist women … who are aware of a particular oppression of women, they actively seek to rectify this oppression by recourse to Islamic principles.” (Karam, 1998: p. 9). Karam’s second type of feminism is Muslim feminism, which incorporates women who draw on both human rights and religious discourse and who seek to steer a middle course but who recognise that “ a feminism which does not justify itself within Islam is bound to be rejected by the rest of society.” (Karam, 1998: p. 11). The third type of feminism is termed secular feminism which relates to those who ground their discourse outside the realm of any religion, whether Christian or Muslim, placing it instead, within the international human rights discourse. Here religion is respected as a private matter for the individual. I would suggest that the positions adopted by our three respondents reflect aspects of this typology with the Middle Eastern respondent reflecting aspects of Karam’s Islamist feminism; the Asian respondent the tradition of ‘Muslim feminism’; and the North African respondent, secular (Muslim) feminism. Each such type is associated with the addressing of gender inequities, even though how such inequities are conceived will depend on the particular world view of the individual concerned. 6. Conclusion The point about this discussion is that it underlines what we are doing in multicultural policy in general, as well as in sport in particular. If we reject the notion of separate and incompatible cultures, and adopt the view that striving for transcultural or intercultural consensus is what we are seeking to achieve, then sport can have a role to play in helping (usually at a micro level) to build such consensus. Figures 3 and 4 Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 18 illustrate what I have in mid here. Consensus building is related to the approach to ethical construction referred to in Habermas’ use development of discourse ethics (Habermas, 1990; Habermas, 1993) (though unlike Habermas I would want to suggest that what can be derived from such discourse are generalised though not necessarily universal moral principles). I want to end by referring you to the image of a veiled women running with her body covered, winning the 100 metres in the Pan-Arab Championship in 2003 (see Figure 5). It illustrates for me what kinds of compromise are possible. Forms of consensus are not just possible, they are essential, and it is one of our crucial tasks as academics, politicians and policy makers or simply as citizens, to assist in the construction of such consensus. We are fortunate that as sports men and women we have access to a social phenomenon which, though not perfect, can form something of a universal language. Sport cannot solve the fundamental dysfunctions of a global society, but it can form a small part of contributions to wider solutions. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 19 Figure 3: Incompatible Cultures: Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ Model Culture B Culture A Culture E Culture C Culture D Irreconcilable Values Sport as a battleground Figure 4: Recognising Common Humanity The building of consensus – discursive ethics Culture B Culture C Culture A Culture D Culture E Radical Culture X Radical Culture Y Sport as an arena of shared negotiated Limited consensus Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 20 Figure 5: An Illustration of the Cultural Pluralism in Sport: 100 metres Women’s Final Pan Arab Athletics Championships 2003 Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 21 References Afshar, H. (1998). Islam and feminisms: an Iranian case-study.New York: St. Martin's Press. Al-Ali, N. S. (2000). Secularism, gender, and the state in the Middle East: the Egyptian women's movement.Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Amara, M., Aquilina, D., Argent, E., Bezer-Tayar, M., Coalter, F., Henry, I., et al. (2005). The Roles of Sport and Education in the Social Inclusion of Asylum Seekers and Refugees: An Evaluation of Policy and Practice in the UK.Loughborough: Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, Loughborough University and Stirling University. Amara, M., Aquilina, D., Henry, I., & Taylor, M. (2004). Sport and Multiculturalism.Brussels: European Commission: DG Education and Culture. Arnaud, L. (1999). Politiques Sportives et Minorités Ethniques.Paris: L'Harmattan. Boswell, C. (2003). European Migration Policies in Flux: changing patterns of inclusion and exclusion.Oxford: Blackwell. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.London: Routledge. Coalter, F. (2004, 26-7 April, 2004). Sport and Social Inclusion. Paper presented at the Sport and Multicultural Dialogue, INSEP. Paris. Coleman, J. (1988-9). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Coleman, J. (1994). Foundations of Social Theory.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda.London: Harper Collins. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application remarks on discourse ethics.Cambridge: Polity. Haddad, Y. Y. (1998). Islam and Gender: Dilemmas in the Changing Arab World. In Y. Y. Haddad & J. Esposito (Eds.), Islam, Gender and Social Change.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, I., Radzi, W., Rich, E., Shelton, C., Theodoraki, E., & White, A. (2004). Women, Leadership and the Olympic Movement.Loughborough: Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy, Loughborough University & the International Olympic Committee. Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations.London: Simon & Schuster. Karam, A. M. (1998). Women, Islamisms and the State: contemporary feminisms in Egypt.Basingstoke: Palgrave. Mernissi, F., & Lakeland, M. J. (1991). The veil and the male elite: a feminist interpretation of women's rights in Islam.Reading, Mass; Wokingham: Addison-Wesley. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community.New York: Simon and Schuster. Said, E. (1991). Orientalism:western conceptions of the Orient.London: Penguin. Saliba, T., Allen, C., & Howard, J. A. (2002). Gender, politics, and Islam.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sardar, Z. (1998). Postmodernism and the Other: the New Imperialism of Western Culture.London: Pluto Press. Ian P. Henry – Sport and multiculturalism 22 Stowasser, B. (1998). Gender Issues and Contemporary Quran Interpretation. In Y. Y. Haddad & J. Esposito (Eds.), Islam, Gender and Social Change.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tam, H. (1998). Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship.Basingstoke: Macmillan. Tibi, B. (2001). Islam between culture and politics.Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave. Volpp, L. (2001). Feminism versus multiculturalism. Columbia Law Review, 101(5), 1181-1218. Winter, B. (2001). Fundamental misunderstandings: Issues in feminist approaches to Islamism. Journal of Women's History, 13(1), 9-41. Woolcock, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development: towards a theoretical sysnthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-208. Woolcock, M. (2001). The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 1-17.