Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited for theorizing multiculturalism. The so-called Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) is characterized by a ‘bottom up’ and claims-based approach eschewing appeal to abstract political principles. Tariq Modood has articulated this contextualist approach as a version of Michael Oakeshott’s idea of politics as ‘the pursuit of intimations’. The question is how such an approach fares when applied to the specific political and social context characteristic of, especially European, political reality of the last 10–15 years. Political opposition to multiculturalism at ideological and rhetorical levels has characterized this context. At the legal level, many of the laws and rules in place actually protecting minority groups have furthermore not had the form of group rights or policies of recognition proposed by multiculturalist theories. The question therefore arises whether a contextualist approach that takes its point of departure in the facts of such a context can deliver a justification of a recognizable multiculturalist political theory. This is a version of the general problem of critical distance facing contextualism. Modood’s version of the approach appeals to the internal diversity of traditions to answer this problem. However, this leads to additional questions about the nature of the theory and the way in which it is action-guiding. Consideration of these questions qualifies the understanding of in which sense the BSM approach is contextual.

许多多元文化主义的理论家提出了情境主义作为一种特别适合于多元文化主义理论化的方法。所谓的布里斯托多元文化学校（BSM）的特点是“自下而上”和基于主张的方法避免了对抽象政治原则的吸引力。塔里克·莫杜德（Tariq Modood）将这种情境主义方法明确表达为迈克尔·奥克肖特（Michael Oakeshott）的政治思想，即“追求密友”。问题是，将这种方法应用于过去10至15年的特定政治和社会背景特征，尤其是欧洲政治现实的情况如何。在思想和修辞层面上对多元文化主义的政治反对就是这种情况的特征。在法律层面上 此外，实际上保护少数群体的许多法律法规还没有采取多元文化主义理论所提出的群体权利或承认政策的形式。因此，出现了一个问题，即在这种情况的事实中偏离其出发点的情境主义方法是否可以为可辨认的多元文化主义政治理论提供理由。这是面对语境主义的关键距离的一般问题的一个版本。Modood的方法版本吸引了传统的内部多样性来回答这个问题。但是，这导致了有关该理论的本质及其指导作用的方式的其他问题。通过考虑这些问题，可以理解BSM方法在上下文意义上的理解。