One consequence of the tremendous growth in the literature on multiculturalism is what might be called a multicultural identity crisis. There are now so many multiculturalists, and so many different theories of multiculturalism on the market, that many are finding it difficult to say what exactly multiculturalism is and what it stands for. Stanley Fish for one has argued that “.multiculturalism is an incoherent concept, which cannot be meaningfully either affirmed or rejected” (Fish 1998: 78). Not to be outdone, Brian Barry followed up with the suggestion that serious political philosophers long ago came to the conclusion that the literature on multiculturalism was so hopelessly muddled as to be hardly worthy of critique (Barry 2001: 6; 2001a). Even some of the most ardent defenders of multiculturalism admit that the term is so broadly and generally applied that it easily lends itself to misunderstanding and confusion (Kymlicka 1998: 59; 2007: 16–18). Ironically, one of the greatest strengths of the literature on multiculturalism—its capacity to draw so many innovative contributions from such a broad range of political philosophers focused on so many different aspects of diversity—has also become one of its greatest weaknesses.