Discuss who is responsible for creating a 'Broken Britain' - Essay Example

?BROKEN BRITAIN Introduction This paper aims at reviewing the major aspects of ‘broken Britain. The term was first put to use by party leader of UK Conservative Party, David Cameron on January, 30th 2008. The Sun was the first to report it (The Sun by Pascoe- Watson 2008). What he meant actually was Britain’s broken social strata. Ever since then, the term has been put to use on multiple occasions and for wide variety of contexts by different people. Sometimes, it is referred to the political fragmentation, sometimes as cultural and moral dissipation, again sometimes as social degradation. Whatever be the reason behind such a phenomenon, it remains a fact that it is making Britain lack behind (Fitzpatrick, 2010). This paper reviews all those factors holds back Britain from being prosperous in terms of economy, ethics, and skill and culture. Then the study identifies the main force responsible for breaking Britain, by specially referring to young generation Britons and criminal activities of recent times. David Cameron, the prime minister of Conservatives, prior to the lections of 2008 had appeared in Glassgow and gave a vision of broken Britain’ for the first time. In his speech, he admitted the effects caused by destruction of industries and its disastrous outcomes on jobs and aspirations of people. What is actually meant was formulation of wrong policies which curbed the interests and wellbeing of middle- class Britons. People who were around and below poverty line and people facing social exclusion were his chief concerns. He placed their problem on similar grounds of importance with other national problems like obesity, consumption of drugs and alcohol. He insisted that problems in society arise as direct “consequence of the choices people make”. This view of broken Britain is shared by most British citizens. Glassgow’s residents had suffered though the phrases said by Cameron (Jones, 2011, p. 73). Politics, more precisely liberalism had played a major role in breaking it further. While endorsing his “semi- apocalyptic” vision of Britain being broken into pieces, the working middle class and lower middle class sections were first held responsible and then shown as victims. This duality in policy led to division of opinions among millions of Britons all across the state. Added to it, since then whenever there occurred any tragic incident or mishap happened, political leaders tried their level best to exemplify them and support their own respective views. All these did nothing but infuriated the common people. Several surveys and studies have reflected the growing contempt. The working class or middle class average Britons were targeted by both the parties belong to right and left (Jones, 2011, p. 73). Britain: social decay Present day British society is subdivided into numerous categories. Different classes are segmented based on culture, ethnicity, affluence, ancestral roots and tradition. All these segmentations have made Britain’s society rather a complex one. Political and cultural authority of London all over Britain is not welcomed by some parts of Britain. Also districts like Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England have been continuously pledging for autonomous power in their respective areas than centralized authority of London (Levitas, 2005, p 123). At the same time, there exists stark disparity among the rich and affluent class and the economically depressed ones. Thus gaps regarding economy and culture have separated northern and southern parts of Britain. Above all is the political rift between the liberals and the conservatives. The political arena has created divisions among natives, common citizens, minority communities and groups of special interest. Their chief concern is the imbalance between ethnic cultures and national identity as a British. Also, one can experience a chord of disharmony among the cities and the British countryside. Difference in moral values among the old and new generation can also be found all through Britain. This is roughly the present scenario of Britain’s social, ethnic and political structure (Oakland, 2010, p. 13- 14). Moral degradation: Compared to the past, behavioral and ethical patterns of the British citizens have changed significantly. Aggressiveness, selfishness, ego, hostility, etc have increased while honesty, politeness, respect, kindness, tolerance, pit, etc have decreased among the Britons. The Britons have become more self- centered, materialistic and eccentric. This phenomenon has resulted in degradation of personal values and values for other relations as well. As such “vulgarity, public emotionalism and sensationalism” have emerged as behavioral modes of present day Britons (Oakland, 2010, p. 13). Drugs: social bane Approximately more than half of British young generations are now ensnared by drugs. Consumption of drugs slowly rose after the Great Wars. However, in last decade, consumption of drugs has increased multifold. More and more are falling prey to illegal drugs. Drugs have become almost an inseparable part of youth culture. The tendency of consuming illegal drugs could also be seen among kids. Most young Britons admit of consuming illegal drugs at least once before turning eighteen. A majority of those go on admitting that they consume cannabis on a regular basis. Other illegal drugs which top the chart are amphetamines, LSD, and ecstasy (Storry and Childs, 2013, p 165). Political decay: As a conflict among the “Conservatives and Liberal Democratic parties”, a new political strategy emerged in Britain. While serving their respective terms, both the parties have formulated their own set of policies. Viewing from ‘political narrative’, these policies possess contrary ideals and goals and are responsible for segmenting Britain’s community section, society, economic conditions and young people (Evans, 2011). Young Britons: Present Scenario Among the various masses who can be blamed for the present condition of Britain, young Britons are also present. It is true that values and ethics are degrading at a fast pace within them, but at the same time we also need to find out what went wrong with them. Over the past few years Britain has considerable amount of change in patterns of adolescent psychology. Pattern of growing and development of young children has become quite different compared to post – war years. During those times, Britain was a prosperous nation in terms of economy and culture. Social and political conditions, too, were very much different. Pg 20--- several surveys to have supported this view that Britain’s youth are deviating from traditional routes of stepping into adulthood. As far as economy is concerned, young people are always welcomed. However, due to the economic crisis of 1970 and recession –struck 1980, youth labor market experienced a huge downfall in the two decades that followed. It continues till date. This not only disturbed the stable economic position attained by young Britons, but also introduced a sense of discrepancy among based on ethnicity, social status, academic qualification, class, zone and disability. In other words, social inequality did nothing but widening and deepening the pre- existing inequality. As a result, a part of this youth became victim of social exclusion. Presently, one can find that instances and incident of such inequality have become more direct- it is neither any more cryptic nor concealed (McDonald, 1997, p. 20). In spite of adversities, middle- class youth have achieved success in mediocre jobs. Under class youth, who exist in millions in Britain, are taken as the outcome of economic marginalization and exclusion policies prevalent in societies. These youth are considered as “dispossessed” and “economically surplus”. Britain is divided in its concern about this “drop- out society”, youth sociology of Britain refuse to deal properly with theories regarding this underclass youth. Also, predictions about present occupational trends and job prospective are not very positive. Somehow, the rate of industrial expansion has commenced. Certain sectors of service have also expended. Therefore, it can be hoped that the condition of lower and middle class youth who lack high skills will not be as worse as assumed (McDonald, 1997, p. 21). Multiculturalism and Community Cohesion Presently, the policies regarding race and religion in Britain are formulated basing upon the new idea of community cohesion. Britain has been the home for multiple ethnic and religious groups, with a wide variety of cultures and lifestyles. Presently, the idea is conceived and accepted that these groups lead ‘parallel’ lives. Some vital aspects of Britain like the funding policies of its government, power and governance of local authorities, and further development of community cohesion – all are decided with the sole objective of unifying the broken Britain. Cantle (2007, p 445) has debated over the application of citizenship agenda, arguing that the rights and regulations are neither mentioned clearly not understood by the host communities. Thus multiculturalism has gained recognition and acceptation but the attitude against them still remained the same. Britain also lacks behind when it comes to awareness about racism. Multiculturalism and racism goes hand in hand. British government supports multiculturalism. It protects the rights of religious and cultural minorities in Britain, thereby promoting “cultural syncretistic” approach. This approach is regarded as a political measure as governments couls easily get votes of the immigrants. Even if multiculturalism was equated by law, movements against racism failed because of two chief reasons. Firstly, constantly, time and again Britain has expressed views and stressed the difference between different ethnic, religious and cultural and economic groups and secondly, it stifled debate where there were not fair discussions for the fear of being tagged as racist or politically incorrect. Britain rather could have focused more on shared beliefs and values (Cantle, 2007, p 443- 440). Identity theory Terms self and identity are used in much broader context. Numerous sociologists and researchers have used these terms in different contexts to give out different meanings. However, there is no denying the fact that both these terms are evolving ones. Identify refers to recognition based on nation, ethics and gender. Social identity comprises of both the self as well as the identity. To define social identity one needs to understand first the value and emotional outlook of that particular culture or social class to which that individual belongs. An individual’s knowledge about his membership with his society blended with his concept of self makes his or her social identity. Social identity thus, highlights two chief components of an individual- first is the degree to which he thinks himself important to the society. Second is the assessment of his surrounding social group to himself. At the same time it has to be remembered that identity, as a whole is not shaped solely by one’s self and knowledge. It also requires “socio- cultural contexts, national myths and intergroup relations” (Ashmore, Jussim and Wilder, 2001, p 5). Social identity of an individual often gets influenced by intergroup conflicts. Sometimes, beliefs and conventions are so deeply rooted in society that, members of such group cease to do or achieve certain stigmatized status or tasks. Moreover, it has also been noticed that races or socio- cultural groups which have a history of suppression like enslavement, genocide and acquisition by some conquest are likely to develop such intergroup conflicts. This severely affects their social identity and individuality (Ashmore, Jussim and Wilder, 2001, p 8). Participation Theories: theories of democracy and the classical myth: The term ‘participation’ was first used in the political arena during 1960’s. In France, the term was used for rallying purpose. In Britain it first got mentioned in Skeffington report. In US it was inaugurated into the anti- poverty program. On a whole, the term ‘Participation’ denotes a huge mass of people surrounded by different situations. Presently participation theory is applicable more for referring democracy. When this century began, establishment of democracy was doubted. This was largely due to size ad complications that gradually developed within industrialized societies. During that time, two concepts of democracy gained popularity. The former one by Mosca favored supremacy and domination of an elite over a society. The later one by Michels holds that organization and democracy cannot go together and people could choose any one of them. According to Schumpeter’s theory of participation, the citizen’s of a country or members of a community could only participate by means of voting and discussion. Discussions are to be held in persons and not through letters. In his opinion, citizens could control their representative by means of negotiation and replacement. Thus, leadership’s concept gets narrowed under this theory. It has also been argued that participation, in a democracy does not play any supreme or central role. All that is required is enough no of candidates to run the election business smoothly. This theory is directed more towards minority sections of any society or nation as quite often they do not participate actively. This theory is widely accepted in today’s concept of democracy as every nation wishes to bank on the votes of minority sections (Participation and Democratic Theory, 1970, p. 1-4). Sub- cultural theory: The sub- cultural theory came into being for the first time in 1970’s. Then, it was chiefly concerned with reflection of deviance within societies during 1960’s. Gradually criminology became an inseparable part of society, and therefore it became essential to research and understands criminals’ tendencies and logics. Thus, study of social reaction became immensely important as it is one of the major components of usual behavioral patterns within any society. This deviance could further be divided into two parts- as a subject with light on action and social process and the political effects it has upon a state. All these together resulted in development of a new theory known as New Criminology. As because crime is deeply related to youth culture, society and politics, a new theory evolved which not only defined the meaning held by youth and their subservient cultures but also ethnographical process associated with them. In other words, sub- cultural theory is nothing but a study of dominant cultures within a social community or a nation, by specially focusing on interpersonal relationships, relationships with outer society, life style and behavior of individuals and masses as well (Brake, 1980, p 60). Effectiveness of these theories in ‘broken Britain’: It has been found out that due to problem in identity, lower income groups in Britain are behaving in abnormal pattern. They are delving deeper into poverty and ignorance. Social division of status also supports this theory. Also, it has been found out that, members of minority political group have better exposure to society, as compared to the members of majority group. This fact, no doubt has affected political scenario of Britain over past few years. Also, in case of out- groups, individuals possess lesser contacts, thus complicating the competitive conditions (Rabinowitz and MacKuen, 2003, p 91). The participation theory is highly applicable in when it comes to social system of Britain. This theory is capable of explaining what led to conservative behavior of Britons during 1940’s and 1950’s. Presently under Planning Advisory Group, several development plans are being conducted to ensure public participation. The local planning authorities are given the responsibility to see that minority group, different ethnic groups, and other socio- cultural and ethnic groups participate in movements as well as in electoral process (Rabinowitz and MacKuen, 2003, p 85- 86). The sub – cultural theory is most prominent on youth of today’s Britain. However, in some cases, it is argues that sub- cuturalism is on the binge of coming to an end in Britain. The sub- cultural scenario of Britain is domination by the ‘theory and practice of cool’ attitude of Britons. Therefore, the Britons, especially, the youth are doing things which they think are making them ‘cool’. Their aggressiveness and desperate nature is making them involve in anti- social behaviors (Rex, 1974, p 160- 165). Youth Crime: Tendency and Practices In Britain, the youth are getting involved into abnormal behaviors and having ‘moral panics. This has been the scenario in all countries which went through the aftermaths of Great Wars. Judging from viewpoint of the existing older generation, the younger generation is heavily deficit in discipline, upright and gentlemanly behavior, and moral values (Dugmore, Pickford, and Angus, 2006, p 61- 63). The tendency towards crime had also grown out of harsh ‘crack down’ policies, including closer surveillance and tougher punishments. Though considerable amount of emphasis is put on the ‘impact’ but still the pleasure of getting pain and adrenalin rush is what seems to attract Britain’s youth. Certain measures have been taken like prohibition of hitting the streets for youth till certain age, preventing incarceration, etc. Some people, however hold the view that media has a huge say in matters of youth crime. In certain cases, as has been observed, media has mobilized general opinions, driving the youth into frenzy. The result is riots, disorders, disobedience of laws and regulations, feuds, and socio- political tension. Young males are mostly involved (Furlong, 2007, p 106). During the decade from 1992 to 2001, Britain had forty percent more prisoners than the previous decade. A large section of these prisoners were youth belonging to different age groups, accused of multiple crimes (Muncie, 2009, p 172). Over the past few years, Britain and other nations have made their custodial sentences harsher. But, simultaneously has increased the tendency to commit serious crimes like fraud, robbery, rape, street violence. However, statistics of violence differ greatly as in numerous cases, violence is not reported to the police, with almost three in every five cases go unreported according to British Crime Survey. More than 50 percent cases of burglary failed to achieve conviction (Furlong, 2007, p 108). Young Britons, having become more a directed towards creating chaos and social disequilibrium. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) only in London itself there exists around 259 gangs of youth, with around 4800 members in total. There are almost 19 areas which are afflicted with gang activities. A majority of these gangs engage with high class criminal activities, and also deal with firearms. Activity of these gangs includes rapes, robbery, forgery, and other forms of social violence. These gangs are also involved in drugs dealings and drug consumptions. These gangs are interconnected with each other and form a widespread criminal network all across Britain, as well as outside it. It is assumed that these criminal activities are supported by left- liberal political party (Cowell et al, 2013) Relationship between Police and Youths and Prevention of Crime According to Furlong (2007, p 109), as crime among youth is increasing at a high speed, British police is interacting with more and more youth. Number of arrests is higher among youth of minority or ethnic groups as compared to middle class youth. As a measure of social surveillance, routine policing has increased in almost every state of Britain. Nor emphasis is given on maintenance of public peace. Cases of police in conflict with youth are increasing due to incidents like fighting outside pubs or stadiums, disturbances on streets, pop festivals or in extravaganzas (Chisholm, 1990, p 156). To deal with youth, British police are given more powers. Even armed response is allowed. The relationship between police and British youth has placed Northern Ireland’s law and order in a position of debate. It is assumed that present trends in crime have direct influence from youth uprisings which took place during 1981 and 1985. Not much to dismay, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984, has mandated that every educational institution has to get their curriculum matters approved from local chief of police. Public Order Act, 1986, Criminal Justice Act, 1982, is some laws that are amended to bring crime tendencies of youth under control. Under Tory government, imprisonment rose. Police too, are now viewing youth as potential criminals. When Criminal Justice (Scotland) was implemented, the number of youths detained became almost double. All over Britain, it is found that black youths and comparatively younger youths are mostly detained and imprisoned (Chisholm, 1990, p 157). The Education and Inspection Act, 2006 was introduced as a measure to prevent crimes among youth. This act emphasized on recreational and educational aspects of youth. Another organization, Positive Activities for Young People (PYAP), 2007, provides funds for bringing the distracted youth into mainstream of society (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Home Affairs, 2010, p 27). Conclusion ‘Broken Britain’ is not the result of one single aspect or factor. Several conditions have acted upon and thus pushed Britain into its present pathetic condition (Heppell and Seawrigh, 2012, p 101). Though several measures have been undertaken from time to time to bridge the gap of different segments of ‘broken Britain’, Britain as a nation still continues to be broken. However, certain restrictions in policy making by the Labour government have brought out that Britain is not as badly broken as it seems. But it cannot be denied that influence and prosperity of Britain is decreasing, and ‘broken Britain’ is responsible for it. Multiculturalism is one of the factors or aspect that is responsible for fragmentation and division of Britain as a nation. During the post war period, these religious and ethnic groups were living, though not harmoniously but peacefully. But in recent times, peace no longer exists between them (Bloor, 2010, p 58). Also, constant conflicts within these communities have also hindered their growth and development. The worst effect of all these is that it hampered national integrity and unity of Britain. All it was left with was segmented socio- political and economic divisions. Liberalism policy followed by the British government is its root cause. With disappearance of industrial hubs financial meltdown, this disparity began to surface. As individual’s behavioral factors were blamed over their economic background, it led to class inequality. Family was held at the centre of society and it was inferred that neither lack of job opportunities nor stern class division has broken Britain. It is the behavior and family that had let Britain break The Guardian by Gentleman (2010). Moreover, degradation of Britain’s youth has made the country’s future face serious questions about development and progress. Youth are the future of any country. If they are misled and they plunge into crimes, they remain very little chance of a nation to stand erect and upright. Another chief aspect which broke Britain’s backbone is large scale recession and financial meltdown at present times. Britain’s economy was suffering from difficult times as it was severely hit by recession and economic meltdown. The phrase of crisis first began during 2007 June (Paterson and Pollock, 2011, p n.d.). The key factor that is responsible for all these is the incorrect policies that were taken by political parties during their respective terms. These policies covered all aspects including education, democracy, rights, and regulations, social welfare, etc. Their policies were contrary to each other, and neglected the goal of common wellbeing of Britons. One of the chief reasons for present failure of Britain is utter failure of Liberalism. Independence or freedom was promoted by Liberalism. This resulted in dissipation of organic community. The effect was felt more in aspects like schools within communities, families, regard for place and local ethos. All these values were withered. The result was disastrous. The whole social structure became vulnerable and increasingly fragile. As a measure to stop this disintegration, the government of Britain has taken frantic measures by means of coercive techniques (Bennett and Kahn-Harris, 2004, p n.d.) References 1. Ashmore, R. D. Jussim, L. and Wilder, D ed. (2001) Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Redution. UK: Oxford University Press 2. Brake, M. (1980) The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures: Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll?. UK: Routledge. 3. Bloor, K. (2010) The Definitive Guide to Political Ideologies. US: AuthorHouse 4. Bennett, A. and Kahn-Harris K ed. (2004) After Subculture: Critical Studies in Contemporary Youth Culture, Palgrave Macmillan: London. 5. Cantle, T. (2007) ‘Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity’ , Social Work Education[online] 423- 430, 4 June, 26. Available: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=6b264b25-3e64-4f0a-9640-f778ed2b92bb%40sessionmgr115&hid=113 6. Cowell et al (2013), Youth and Policy, No. 109, available at: http://www.youthandpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/yandp109.pdf (accessed on April 27, 2013) 7. Chisholm, L. ed. (1990) Childhood, Youth And Social Change: A Comparative Perspective. UK: Routledge. 8. Dugmore, P., Pickford, J. and Angus, S. (2006) Youth Justice and Social Work, Learning Matters: Exeter 9. Evans, K. (2011) ‘Big Society’ in the UK: A Policy Review. Kathy Evans. Children and Society [online], 25, 164- 171. Available http://www.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/173768/Big-Society-in-the-UK-final.pdf 10. Furlong, A. (2007) Young People and Social Change. US: McGraw-Hill International. 11. Fitzpatrick, M. P. (2010) How ‘Broken Britain’ became a broken record, Nature [online]. I February. Available http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/8024/ 12. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Home Affairs, (2010) The Stationery Office. 13. Gentleman, A. (2010) Is Britain Broken? The Guardian (31 March) available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/31/is-britain-broken (Accessed on 20 April, 2013) 14. Heppell, T. and Seawright, D. ed. (2012) Cameron and the Conservatives: The Transition to Coalition Government. Uk: Palgrave Macmillan. 15. Jones, O. (2011) Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Class. London: Verso 16. Levitas, R. (2005) Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 17. Muncie, J. (2009) Youth and Crime, Sage Publications: London 18. McDonald, R. ed. (1997) Youth, the Underclass and Social Exclusion. UK: Routledge. 19. Oakland, J. (2010) British Civilization: An Introduction. UK: Taylor & Francis. Rabinowitz, G. B., and MacKuen, M. B. (2003) Electoral democracy. US: University of Michigan Press 20. Participation and Democratic Theory, (1970) US: Cambridge University Press 21. Paterson, C, and Pollock, E (2011) Policing and Criminology; Exeter, Learning Matters. SAGE: California. 22. Pascoe- Watson, G. (2008)’ Cam: I”ll Mend Broken Britain’, The Sun, (30th January), available at: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/741731/David-Cameron-Tory-leader-Plans-to-mend-broken-Britain.html [accessed on 20 April 2013]. 23. Rex, J. (1974) Approaches to Sociology: An Introduction to the Major Trends in British Sociology. UK: Routledge. 24. Storry, M. and Childs, P. ed. (2013) British Cultural Identities. UK: Routledge. 25. Social Exclusion Unit (2004) Breaking the Cycle: Taking Stock of Progress and priorities for the future. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Read More