2026-04-14T03:31:37Zhttps://recercat.cat/oai/request

oai:recercat.cat:10230/465152025-12-20T16:49:20Zcom_2072_6col_2072_452952

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Zapata Barrero, Ricard author 2021-02-18T08:59:25Z 2021-02-18T08:59:25Z 2018 This rejoinder reacts to the comments I have received of my defence of interculturalism (key-article of this Special Issue). Basically it defends the need to take seriously the distinctiveness between MC and IC, as friends rather than foes. It is also argued that the emergence of IC must be placed in the context of legitimacy crisis of MC and the process of policy paradigm change and formation. Then, it is briefly stated that IC tries to fill the epistemological limits of MC and must be considered as a mainstreaming policy within the “local turn” in migration and diversity studies. Moreover, it is contended that IC is a new public mindset and announces a new public culture in a society of multipleidentities. Finally that IC makes diversity workwith a view of diversity as an advantage (which means that it is policy resource for cultivating community cohesion, creativity, economic development, solidarity promotion, xenophobia reduction). Finally, I reckon that IC probably requires a multidimensional theory of contact and a more deep normative reflection in terms of public benefits. Interculturalism Diversity Post-multicultural Proximity Public space Cities Diversity-advantages Rejoinder: multiculturalism and interculturalism: alongside but separate