The complexity of coexistence: Dutch perspectives on multiculturalism and Muslim integration

Abstract

This paper interrogates the coexistence of broad multicultural ideals with persistent anti-Muslim sentiment in the Netherlands; a nation historically celebrated for tolerance but increasingly marked by tensions over integration. Drawing on original analysis of a 2023 EC-funded H2020 project survey (N = 1963), we reveal a sharp divide: while Dutch respondents express moderate support for multiculturalism as a principle (M = 4.60), attitudes toward Muslim communities remain starkly negative (M = 3.22). A significant minority (12%) exhibits what we identify as forbearance tolerance, a conflicted state of endorsing diversity in the abstract while perceiving Muslims as incongruent with national values. We argue this orientation is a unsurprising result of attitudinal ambivalence, a psychological state produced by the confluence of the Netherlands’ secular heritage, its colonial legacy, and contemporary populist politics. The Netherlands’ post-pillarisation secular heritage established a model of tolerance-through-separation, while its postcolonial legacy and the populist securitisation of Islam have fostered a ‘progressive nativism’ that frames Muslim integration as a threat to liberal norms. Educated urban elites, though theoretically tolerant, exhibit heightened cultural anxieties, reflecting how ambivalence is most pronounced among those exposed to competing egalitarian and threat-based narratives. Urban centres such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam amplify these tensions, where systemic inequities in housing, labour markets, and surveillance reinforce exclusion. Our findings challenge assimilationist policy narratives, highlighting how structural Islamophobia, entrenched in colonial othering and modern identity politics, perpetuates a fragile and damaging form of coexistence. The Dutch case illuminates broader European struggles with integration, urging a shift from symbolic tolerance to policies that address the roots of ambivalence and institutional discrimination.