In the context of globalization, one may argue that the notions of local cultures and identity have become increasingly important, in particular in Western countries. Today, a sense of “crisis” indeed surrounds the relationship between ethnic, religious and social communities in some Western states. According to T. Modood, the “atmospherics of this post-9/11 crisis” is linked to clear tensions over immigration, visible difference, or over religious questions1. Therefore, different theories have attempted to address problems related to these issues and to national identity. Among them, the theories of “assimilation” and of “multiculturalism” are the most prevalent. Although both aim at building a strong, harmonious, and cohesive society, they diverge in their conception of the path to follow in order to reach this goal. It seems therefore relevant to discuss the relevance, the strengths and weaknesses of each model. In this essay, we will first confront these immigrant incorporation theories, and in a second part, we will have a look at two states, France and the Netherlands, that are concretely influenced by both of these normative approaches, respectively by the assimilationist and by the multiculturalism theories.

In 1930, Robert Park defined social “assimilation” as “the name given to the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial origins ans different cultural heritages, occupying a common territory, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain a national existence”2. Milton Gordon later defined “structural assimilation”3 as “the entry of members of an ethnic minority into primary-group relationships with the majority group”. The first step in this process being the “acculturation”, which is “the minority group's adoption of the cultural patterns of the host society”4. Assimilationist theory strongly relates to the idea of national identity. Assimilationists suggest that if a society makes the effort to incorporate