Issues in Multicultural England - Essay Example

Issues in multicultural England Introduction As societies around the globe have become increasingly diverse, a somewhat recent response to this diversity, and o that has noted a great deal of success and implementation, is that of multiculturalism. At its core, multiculturalism promotes an understanding of the fact that there is not a need to conform or assimilate to a national culture; instead, members of society, and culture itself, can be improved and maximized in the event that individuals retain their unique nuances and seek to appreciate the unique differences and cultural approaches of others. The conclusion of the Second World War in 1945 hastened a level of cultural interaction and immigration into many Western nations that had not previously been seen. Much of this immigration and increased cultural interaction was the result of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals were force to seek work elsewhere or move from the destroyed regions that they had previously lived. In his text ‘Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea’ Modood (2007) stresses the importance of education in shaping multiculturalism in the modern society. This paper examines the prospects of multiculturalism with the impending changes to the national curriculum. The need for change is contingent upon some of the issues that have been represented within England over the past few decades. Ultimately, the nation is experiencing something of a tribalized level of development; with certain ethnic, racial, or religious groups seemingly existing within the periphery of English life and not actively viewing themselves as a functional part of it. This creates a serious issue both for the society’s development and for the way in which multicultural can be effected or considered as an overall success. Within this understanding, stakeholders within government and education have determined that the most effective way of correcting this would be to focus a higher level of emphasis on engaging multicultural norms and forms of appreciation within the educational structure; as a means of integrating with the societal stakeholder as they are young and explaining the importance of this as a means of forming a more cohesive yet individualized nation. For a long time since it came to the fore in the 1940s, multiculturalism has been presented as a positive feature of national societies. Countries and even cities have proudly presented themselves as being multi-cultural or even metropolitan; this represents part of a wider ideology referred to as multiculturalism (UNESCO, 2003). During the past two decades or more, multiculturalism has been widely debated among social scientists and philosophers. Multiculturalism has been positively evaluated by various social scientist and political scientists; one of these individuals is the political philosopher, Bhiku Parekh. Parekh raised the question of whether or not the coexistence of distinct cultural groups in one society effected a measurable difference in actions (Parekh, 2000). This stemmed from his belief that such coexistence was possible and even beneficial to all members of the given society. According to Parekh, societies with single unitary cultures are no longer possible in the contemporary word with so much migration taking place (UNESCO, 2003, pp.4). Parekh indicated that it is more likely that societies where multiple cultures coexist will proliferate and it is important that all these cultures should have equal respect. However, other social scientists have alternative views of multiculturalism and have developed an altogether different theory of it. For example Barry (1999) offers a critique of multiculturalism as largely approached by people like Parekh. He defends the values of liberal society and asserts his belief that it is wrong to view the various groups existing in society as only culturally different. Barry believes that the groups also bring with them various political relations which present the real problem to which liberal political theory has to address (Hassan, 2011). Since about 1945, immigrant ethnic minorities increasingly migrated to western European countries and these countries responded in three basic ways. The first solution to this situation is assimilation; this is strongly utilized in France. The second method, which largely has been applied in German speaking countries, is denial of political citizenship to immigrant workers. The third method is a form of multiculturalism in application in some countries including England and the Netherlands (Castles and Davidson, 2000). In the United Kingdom, specifically England, after briefly accepting assimilation in education in the sixties, the government then opted for the notion of integration, what the Home Secretary described as “A process of cultural diversity coupled with equal opportunity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance (Home Office, 2001)”. The most significant thing about this approach was that it did not embrace any sort of multiculturalism that would permit the unequal treatment of minorities, thus it related to Marshall’s ideas of social citizenship. However, in practice the notion of an egalitarian multicultural society raises difficult questions that still need concrete answers in contemporary society. The first question is why separate communal cultures should be allowed to continue to exist. It has been claimed in response that such cultures should be allowed to exist because they have value in themselves, thus this should be accepted through mutual tolerance. Secondly it has been asserted that individuals derive moral and emotional comfort in their cultures which is essential for personal psychological stability (UNESCO, 2003). This implies that apart from the participation of ethnic minorities in the public and political institutions of the welfare state, they have their culture and organizations where they feel at home. Castles (2000) indicates that much of what multiculturalism is all about is abandonment of the understanding that a homogenous nation will exhibit a desire to recognize and promote the rights of those who are culturally distinct. This is also linked to social equity and protection of individuals and groups from discrimination. Thus, multiculturalism represents some level of corrective assimilation; which in turn allows for the development of legislation and other mechanisms through which the rights of the individual who is culturally distinct can be protected (Faist, 2000). In terms of policy, multiculturalism provides a framework for procedures, welfare, healthcare and many other essentials of society. However, multiculturalism is associated with many discourses some of which are overlapping while others are divergent. These discoursed, institutional frameworks and policies have been observed to utilize the term quite differently (Vertovec and Cohen, 2000). In contemporary society multiculturalism may refer to a number of things, it may refer to a particular political ideology, a demographic description, public policies, a mode of resourcing cultural expression and a feature of postmodernism (Werbner, 2008). What this means in essence is that it is difficult to pin a definition of multiculturalism as it is at best an amorphous ideology that is utilized many different groups to further diverse interests. Alibhai-Brown (2000) criticizes what she finds as contemporary “consumer multiculturalism”. According to her all these are minimalist forms of multiculturalism which hinder diversity and cause more harm than good. On the other hand, Kundnani (2007) provides a very useful distinction between ‘low levels’ of multiculturalism are represented in public while there is still a high degree of expectation for assimilation within the public sphere. This includes all walks of life like education, law and government, employment etc. Earlier, Grillo (1998, pp. 195) had outlined six common flaws of multicultural theory and practice. This creates a situation in which group barriers define the way in which interaction takes place (Banks, 1979). Favell (1998) observed that implicit in the process of multiculturalism is an under-studied, of underlying problems of inequality, racism, and unfairness that oftentimes exist within/throughout modern society. Favell also criticizes the manner in which this token approach to multiculturalism brings to the fore the idea of social integration. This critique is based on what is called the “container model of the nation state”; referring to ideas concerning belonging, class, and cohesion as understood within the lens of place boundaries (Faist, 2000). In past models of the nation-state in England and other European nations, it was expected that immigrants would adopt the new culture and sense of belonging to their new country. Multiculturalism seeming vanquished the expectation of assimilation and change of culture. Yet, the expectation that the immigrant can rapidly develop an attachment to the new nation-state is still something that is largely unchanged (Caruso, 2014). The Commission on the Future of a Multi-Ethnic Britain was established in 1998 by way of the Runnymede Trust. In this way it was tasked with re-thinking and re-orientation of multiculturalism in Britain. This commission was set up upon recognition of the weaknesses and pitfalls of assimilation as previously experienced in Britain. This commission was chaired by Lord Parekh and produced a definitive report called The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (Runnymede Trust, 2000). Accordingly, this document is considered still as one of the most comprehensive overviews of race/ethnic relations that exist/existed within Britain. The report has numerous recommendation covering education, health, criminal justice, arts, media and many other fields. The Parekh report particularly focused on monitoring government institutions with the goal of creating an overall level understanding concerning the vital role that cultural diversity represented (Banks, 1991). This report and other similar efforts across society represent attempts to at public emphasis of understanding of cultures and communities and how they might interact with one another. The MacPherson report of 1999 illustrated the immediate need to shift multicultural focus; as the prior levels of integration within society, and those supported by the government and education sectors, had not been effective in achieving this goal. Pointing to the fact that racial discord was at an epidemic level, the MacPherson report urged lawmakers and stakeholders to engage a new approach prior to these pressures on society being illustrated in an even more negative way than they had been already. Likewise, this report served as the basis for the next iteration of change that the educational sphere would note in the form of the National Curriculum changes of 2002; something that will be discussed at some more depth later within this analysis (Bode, 2005). Moving the discussion into the current time, one of the biggest issues associated with multiculturalism in England today is polarised achievement levels. Information from more than two decades now shows that almost all minority groups face some level of non-integration, racism, or discrimination. According to Modood and Acland (1998) these achievements have taken place even though there have been a great litany of impediments towards cultural diversity and assimilation being realized throughout society. Yet, even as class and race continue to have a defining impact on who can accomplish what, the overall increase in multi-cultural understanding is helping to decrease the gap that has thus far been noted. Moreover, a key threat to national integrity has to do with the fact that failed levels of cultural understanding or ideas representing self worth have created a situation in which many stakeholders within society realize that there is an expectation that they should achieve less than their counterparts. This is an especially dangerous and incorrect assumption; due in part to the fact that it promotes ethnic racial, and class expectation with respect to the way in which an individual will perform throughout the course of their lives. For this very reason, some of the recent changes to the National Curriculum are concentric upon seeking to shift these societal understandings and creating a more equitable playing field for all students to learn within. The next issues are gender and religion. In the United Kingdom, the issue of gender equality is something that truly cannot be ignored; particularly as a function of the way in which multi-cultural understanding and appreciation for religion impacts upon this. A prime example of this is with regard to the Islamic tradition for women to “dress modestly” and wear the hijab. As such, many individuals see this requirement as a clear confinement and reduction in the women’s right to freedom; ultimately serving as a degree of “confinement” perpetrated by religion. Some groups are strongly opposed to radicalization of religion with their prevalent argument being that the role of religion should remain in the private sphere – something that exists between the believer and their god(s). However, at the moment at which this belief begins to expand beyond the private and personal sphere, it necessarily has the high risk of negatively impacting upon the rights of others. Most radically, it has been pointed out that the inclusion of religious minorities into the British policy requires not only the that the Constitutional privileges be ignored but that the severance of any relationship between the state and religion be reconsidered. One of the implications of such a move would be removing any state funding for religious schools that promote such beliefs (Davey & Harwood, 2014). It is evident that there are increasing conflicts between secularists and multiculturalists who both want to include and respect the beliefs of those individuals that hail from different backgrounds and religious traditions as compared to many that have lived within the United Kingdom for decades. Another important issue related to multiculturalism and one that affects education both directly and indirectly is the issue of what has been referred to as “New Britishness” and/or “hybridity”. The discussing and understanding of some of the more contemporary multicultural issues would not be fully understood if it were not for an appreciation for the progress towards the social and cultural interactions that take place between second and third generation immigrants and their more “native” counterparts. Surveys in the recent past have indicated that a large number of ethnic minority youth identify themselves both as British and as also belonging to their ethnic minorities. This has also been exacerbated by an increase in the rates of intermarriages (Modood et al., 2003). The issue of politics particularly in education has also played its part in influencing the multicultural discourse in England. In recent times it has been observed that British political parties of the extreme right have started achieving greater political space and success. This development has been particularly associated with their use of negative campaign propaganda that targets multiculturalism. For example, the British National Party (BNP) has gained political mileage in the last decade or so by portraying immigrant minorities as taking away the opportunities of native British in education, employment and other sectors. The party has risen in popularity by portraying two major parties that have been in power, Conservatives and Labour as having policies that disadvantage white British nationals in most spectrums of life and increasingly in education (Duke, 2013). This kind of propaganda portrays multiculturalism in a completely different and negative light from what is being pursued through government policy and collective society action. Rather by seeking to please the population that is largely disenchanted with economic issues, the extreme right is eroding gains that have been made in multicultural development through negative propaganda that seems to portray immigrants as not being part of the British society. This trend is affecting education in Britain with the propaganda particularly using recent decline in the British education curriculum to blame inclusive public policy that benefits citizens of all ethnic backgrounds. The worrying trend however is that in the fear of losing political space, the mainstream parties are starting to respond to extreme right propaganda and success by bringing in policies and actions that seem to accommodate some ideology from the extreme right. In that respect the impending changes to the national curriculum need to be handled correctly so as to cement the desired kind of multiculturalism that will not discriminate any British citizens. On the other hand, the change in curriculum has potential implications to multiculturalism in the country; the curriculum will definitely affect multiculturalism depending on what it proposes and how it will be implemented. Multiculturalism has various prospects in England with the coming national educational curriculum reviews. The National Curriculum can ultimately trace its roots as far back as 1988; when it was determined that national standards of religious education and core curricula must be presented to all children within the United Kingdom. Moreover, the current National Curriculum holds as one of its primary charters the need to encourage the formation of individual and group identities that will contribute to a greater degree of personal integrity (Banks, 2005). The underlying reason behind this has to do with the understanding that moral, cultural, spiritual, and social heritage forms a fundamental cornerstone of the way in which an individual understands the world around them and seeks to define their own place within it. The curriculum seeks to promote the creation of personal identity as well as encouraging the understanding that allow multiple identities to define the individual is not negative; and can actually be viewed as a fundamentally positive aspect of personal and cultural development (DfES, 2004). The need to be comfortable in one’s identity, whether cultural or personal, serves as a fundamental aspect of personhood. As such, researchers and educators have focused upon these elements in the hopes that creating multiple associated cultural identities can allow for a more efficient level of social and educational cohesion. According to Sen (2006) human identities are multidimensional and people should not be forced into singular boxes of identity because this can have troublesome impacts. Le Roux (2002) further raises the concern that ethnic differences should not be sacrificed for the purpose of keeping a distinct national identity. The Citizenship Foundation (2006) also strongly suggested that during the development of any aspect of a national identity amongst students it is important that the curriculum did not impose view of what it meant to be “English” or “British”. The foundation suggested that the notion of identity is far more important than the construction of flawed of imperfect national traits of personality or being. Tate (2005) favours the recognition and celebration of cultural differences because of its tendency to strengthen national unity; however he is wary of over emphasis of diversity because the common sense of purpose can be undermined. As recently as 2005, scholars have begun to discuss the promotion of citizenship and development of a shared values (Banks et al., 2005). The revised National Curriculum, of 2013, was made with the intention of recognizing a key commonalities and promoting these “values”. The values were meant to define the development of a sense of responsibility among students (Arthur, 2003). At this stage the curriculum helps shape multiculturalism by helping students realise the consequences of antisocial behaviours including racism. Some of the tensions that continue to be evidenced can be partially understood with respect to race, ethnic strife, cultural hatred, and religious supremacy movements (Banks et al., 2004). Kerr et al. (2004) raised a number of important points about the new curriculum and its approach to citizenship education. Among them was the role of teachers in helping students develop socialization skills into loyal citizenship and tolerance. According to Osler and Starkey (2005) the new curriculum helps students to “comprehend how to be tolerant” and how to “act by a moral code (Osler & Starkey, 2005). Citizenship education is extraordinarily important in helping to develop these dynamics (Watson, 2004). As reported by many analysts, this helps to form the basis for how young stakeholders in society will begin to view aspects relating to civic obligation and roles. In essence, multi-cultural education is not something that can be uniformly adopted in terms of appreciating each and every aspect of culture. Instead, it is something that can benefit all stakeholders involved if effected properly. Lastly, there has been a key ideological shift that has been evidenced with respect to the National Curriculum changes of 2013. Beyond merely promoting a greater degree of multiculturalism, the curriculum seeks to provide key examples of the way in which harmony and diversity, as an ideal, can be achieved. Although this may appear somewhat absurd, the examples that had been given were invariably so idyllic that students were believed to have merely disregarded them as simply the work of a utopian educational system seeking to foist an unrealistic view of the world upon them. As such, in attempting to modernize and rationalize these approaches, the National Curriculum seeks to engage with the difficult issues of what “differentness” effects and the means through which the individual should approach censure, racism, ridicule, or hatred within society. Moreover, by utilizing the riots of London and other indicators as a vehicle for analysis, the National Curriculum seeks to draw the student’s attention to the core causes for these actions rather than merely passing judgement on them and moving on to another set of issues. Conclusion The issue of multiculturalism in England and the UK in general is one that has undergone a lot of discourse in the recent past. With rising intolerance being witnessed particularly through misinformation of the public by extreme right with parties and groups, Gillborn and Ladsson-Billing (2006), it has become even more imperative that positive multiculturalism built around tolerance and embracing of ethnic diversity be promoted through every channel including educational curricular. The prospects for more desirable positive multiculturalism in England will become brighter with the introduction of revised and improved National Curriculum that includes lessons deliberately targeting cohesion, tolerance and ethnic diversity as one ‘English’ culture. The new National Curriculum focuses attention to a number of issues that promote shared British Values and identities. This can only be a positive prospect for multicultural development in the country. References Alibhai-Brown, Y, 2000. After Multiculturalism. London: The Foreign Policy Centre Alibhai-Brown, Y, 2000. After Multiculturalism. London: The Foreign Policy Centre Arthur, J, 2003. Education with Character: The Moral Economy of Schooling. London: Routledge. Banks, J, McGhee, C, Cortes, C, Hahn, C, Merryfield, M, Moodley, K, Murphy-Shigematsu, S, Osler, A, Park, C and Parker, W, 2005. Seattle, WA, Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington. Banks, J. A., (1979). Shaping the future of multicultural education. The Journal of Negro Education 48(Summer), 237–252. Banks, J. A. (1991). The dimensions of multicultural education. Multicultural Leader, 4, 5–6.  Banks, J. A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practices. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 3–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.  Bode, P. (2005). Multicultural art education: Voices of art teachers and students in the postmodern era. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Caruso, D 2014, Multiculturalism in climate and curriculum: Students perspectives in one English independent school, Dissertation Abstracts International, 69, 3-B, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 May 2014. Castles, A, 2000. Ethnicity and Globalization: From Migrant Worker to Transnational Citizen. London: Sage. Castles, S and Davidson, A, 2000. Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. Basingstoke: Palgrave Citizenship Foundation, 2003. Education for Citizenship, Diversity and Race Equality: A Practical Guide. London: The Citizenship Foundation. Cole, M and Stuart, J, 2005. Do you ride on elephants and never tell them you’re German: The experiences of British Asian and black and overseas student teachers in south-east England. British Educational Research Journal, 31 (3), p.349-366. Davey, C, & Harwood, P 2014, Citizenship outside the classroom, International Journal Of Market Research, 44, 3, pp. 265-281, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 May 2014. Duke, C, & Warwick Univ., C 1992, Liberal Adult Education--Perspectives And Projects. A Discussion Paper In Continuing Education. Number 4, n.p.: ERIC, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 May 2014. DfES, 2004. Aiming High: Understanding the Educational Needs of Minority Ethnic Pupils in Mainly White Schools. DfES Guidance (London, DfES/0416) Faist, T, 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press Favell, A, 1998. To belong or not to belong: the postnational question. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gillborn, D and Ladson-Billing, G., (Eds) 2006. The Routledge Falmer Reader in Multicultural Education. Routledge Falmer, Taylor and Francis Group: London Grillo, R, 1998. Pluralism and the Politics of Difference: State, Culture and Ethnicity in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon. Hassan, N, 2011. UEL Reader on Issues in Multicultural Britain. SAGE: London. Home Office, 2001. Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team, Chaired by Ted Cantle. London, HMSO. John. G, 2006. Taking a Stand, Gus John Speaks on Education, Race, Social Action and Civil Unrest 1980-2005 (Lecture given to the Department of Applied Social Sciences, London Metropolitan University, 7th June) Kerr, D, Ireland, E, Lopes, J, Craig, R with Cleaver, E, 2004. Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study: Second Annual Report: First Longitudinal Survey, Making Citizenship Education Real. London: DfES/RR 531. Kundnani, A, 2007. The End of Tolerance: Racism in 21st Century Britain, London: Pluto Press. Le Roux, J, 2002. Effective educators are culturally competent communicators. Intercultural Education, 13(1), p.37-48. Marshall, T, 1963. Sociology at the Crossroads and Other Essays. London: Heinemann. Modood, T & Acland, T., 1998. Race and higher education. London: Policy Studies Institute. Modood, T, 1998. Anti-essentialism, multiculturalism and the ‘recognition’ of religious minorities. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4), p.378–399. Modood, T, 2007. Multiculturalism: A Civic Idea. Polity Press. Modood, T, Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., & Beishon, S., 2003. Ethnic minorities in Britain: Diversity and disadvantage. London: Policy Studies Institute. Ofsted, N 2002. Achievement of Black Caribbean Pupils: Good Practice in Secondary Schools. London: Ofsted/HMI 448. Osler, A and Starkey, H, 2005. Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Review of Research, Policy and Practice 1995-2005. Available at: www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/OslerStarkeyBERAReview2005. Parekh, B, 2000. The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report. London: Profile Books and the Runnymede Trust. Parekh, B, 2000b. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. London, MacMillan. Pollock, M, 2004. Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sen, A, 2006. Identity and Violence. New York: Norton. Tate, N, 2005. Culture, Identity and Education (address given to the thirty-third Oxford Conference in Education, St. Catherine’s College, University of Oxford, 5th January). Tikly, L, Caballero, C, Haynes, J and Hill, J, 2004. Understanding the Educational Needs of Mixed Heritage Pupils. London: DfES/RR 549 Vertovec, S and Cohen, R, 1999. Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Watson, J, 2004. Educating for citizenship – The emerging relationship between religious education and citizenship education. British Journal of Religious Education, 26(3), 2p.59-271 Werbner, P, 2008. Divided loyalties, empowered citizenship? Muslims in Britain. Citizenship Studies, 4(3), p.307-24 Read More