Multiculturalism has received a lot of bad press lately. Apparently, to name but a few of the charges raised against it, it leads to segregation and undermines national cohesion. But as Crowder (pp. 5–13) notes, it is not always clear what is meant when people criticise – or, for that matter, defend – multiculturalism, as the concept proves notoriously elusive. Theories of Multiculturalism: An Introduction helps to untangle some of this confusion by exploring different responses to multiculturalism (both approving and critical). In so doing, it injects some much-needed clarity into the sometimes heated public debates that shape how societies experience and live with their diversity and devise public policy responses to it. While the book does not really go into social policies much, it addresses the political orientations underlying such policies and more specifically whether the latter should publicly recognise cultural diversity or not. Its real contribution is scholarly: Crowder provides an excellent and comprehensive introduction to the debate on multiculturalism in contemporary political theory that is sure to leave students new to the field with a firm grasp of the most important arguments. At the same time, the book also offers something to those already well-versed in multicultural theories as Crowder stakes out his own position, which is best characterised as a form of liberal value pluralism.

To introduce the key texts on multiculturalism, Crowder (p. 13) explores whether or not they present multiculturalism – understood as the acknowledgement and positive evaluation of cultural diversity coupled with its public recognition (p. 7) – as desirable and, if so, in what form. Chapter 1 rebuts the claim that multiculturalism is necessarily based in relativism and argues for a version of universalism that is sensitive to cultural diversity. Moving to less abstract territory, Crowder then presents the various strands of the debate on multiculturalism in political theory by discussing the work of leading authors: liberal multiculturalism (Kymlicka, Chapter 2); liberal critics of multiculturalism (e.g. Barry, Chapter 3); nationalism and cosmopolitanism (e.g. Miller, Chapter 4); non-liberal multiculturalism (e.g. Taylor, Chapter 5); and democratic responses to multiculturalism (e.g. Young, Chapter 6). In Chapter 7, Crowder sets the scene for his own position by discussing value pluralism (e.g. Berlin) in relation to multiculturalism. Before bringing home his argument, however, he first takes up a more global perspective on cultures in Chapter 8, where he discusses the coexistence of the West, Islam and Confucianism (e.g. Huntington). In Chapter 9, the different strands of the book are tied together as Crowder argues for a particular interpretation of value pluralism as the appropriate response to cultural diversity in society and defends it against the other positions discussed before.

Crowder's (pp. 146−57) value pluralism is carefully distinguished from cultural pluralism and relativism: the former simply refers to the fact that values are plural and may at times conflict, and while different cultures often realise values in different ways, value pluralism also exists within a single culture. And the intuition that such values are incommensurable does not mean that cultures are as well: indeed, these can be critically compared at the points where they overlap (p. 163). Value pluralism, Crowder (pp. 191–204) argues, supports a kind of politics that is liberal and committed to personal autonomy. This is because the concept of value pluralism itself already implies certain normative principles: it entails choices between different rankings of values, which presupposes personal autonomy, a value consequently important enough to deserve public commitment. Value pluralism also implies value diversity as people can make different reasonable judgments. Autonomy and diversity are both best served by a liberal politics which is hence already implied in value pluralism and not simply one value system among others. Effectively, this means that ‘multiculturalism has to be qualified by liberalism’ (p. 196).

Crowder writes clearly and covers a vast range of literature. Overall, he manages to both introduce different texts fairly, discussing main objections as well as responses to these, and use them to delineate his own position. This position offers new insights as it clarifies the connections between value pluralism, liberalism and multiculturalism. The book thus both forms an accessible and comprehensive introduction to the debate and an interesting contribution to it − and this is no easy task to pull off. It is perhaps only to be expected, therefore, that the defence of value pluralism could be stronger at times (as indeed, this would take another book). Nonetheless, in distinguishing his position from those of others, Crowder could have exercised a little more subtlety. Throughout the book, he seems preoccupied with relativism, which is really somewhat peculiar as the strongly essentialist conception of it he outlines is not, to my knowledge, defended by any serious political theorist in the field of multiculturalism (and nor are other conceptions, actually); yet Crowder has a tendency to attribute this position to scholars who are more willing to lend weight to context and community than he is. Thus, apparently, thinkers as diverse as ‘Taylor, Tully, Parekh, Young and Gray . . . tend either to adopt relativist positions that are dangerous to individual liberties, or to rely tacitly on essentialist notions of culture, or to smuggle liberal values back into their arguments’ (p. 196). The evidence he gives for such claims, however, remains somewhat circumstantial so one sometimes gets the strange sensation Crowder might be fighting proverbial straw men.

But these are matters of nuance that are peripheral to the impressive ambition of the book, to not only introduce new readers to theories of multiculturalism but also to entice accustomed audiences with new insights. And Theories of Multiculturalism lives up to that ambition successfully.