What does 'mixed' mean in contemporary Britain - Essay Example

?What does 'mixed' mean in contemporary Britain and why? “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.” The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills. Introduction The emergence of mixedness is a dialectical process involving both individuals at the micro level and society at large. When individuals become mixed in their identities and lifestyles, social (national) identity too by default become mixed. The prevailing practice of multiculturalism and the corresponding intersection of identities, based on race, nationality, ethnicity and sex, have led to the mixing of identities in the present day society in the United Kingdom. Mixedness is quite often wrongly attributed to the different heritage of individuals and communities. It is only partially true as mixedness is also the product of the contemporary society which actively mixes the identities of both individuals and communities which previously existed exclusive of each other. One could easily argue that mixedness is essentially a question of the present as it is constantly (re)produced in the present society. Mixedness happens in the present and strengthens itself through the present. For instance, when people marry persons from other communities, they actually (re)create mixedness. In other words, mixedness is always in the making. Mixedness is not simply an ascribed status of people have hereditary status of coming from what is traditionally known as interracial mixed families. Mixedness could also be derived from the present in a vibrant multicultural society. Mixedness is constantly produced in the multiple avenues opened up by the practice of multiculturalism and an existing multiracial multicultural environment. Here, the identities are not constant and permanent. It exists in constant flux and always becoming fluid. Therefore, mixedness is not a marginal phenomenon occurs with some marginal mixed group. It is the general state of affairs of the contemporary British society. Mixedness is no more simply a question of the existence of a mixed race in the United Kingdom. The mixed groups are usually defined in terms of their commonalities, which are defined by shared inheritance, culture and beliefs. But, the idea of mixedness does not stick to mixed groups alone. Mixedness is the mainstream. In other words, the mainstream has gone mixed and it is increasingly being more mixed by a variety of social, economic and political forces. It characterises the mainstream society as everyone gets mixed in a multicultural society in one way or another. Many research studies, according to Song (2010), have proved that no mixed group in the United Kingdom is coherent both as a community and in lived-in experiences. Identity, Lifestyle and Representation The passage from modernity which was characterised by colonialism to postmodernity, defined in terms of postcolonialism has changed the outlook of British society forever. At present, “the demise of colonialism as an explicit political formation has given rise to understandings of postcoloniality and, perhaps ironically, an increased recognition of the role of colonialism in the formation of modernity” (Bhambra , 2007, p.878). In Bhambra’s scheme, the old British society was characterised by the ‘White malestream’ vis-a-vis the marginalised colonial subjects. The White British society existed as the product of modernity and was predominantly characterised by a homogenous White culture. But, the increased immigration from the postcolonial societies to the United Kingdom is altering the British social landscape in an unprecedented manner wherein the Whiteness did not exist as pure or as the founding culture of the British nation. The identities of British people are no more constructed against nationality, ethnicity, race or sexuality. The mixed identities of the British people are self constructed. And, it is possible to argue that the socially and culturally determined self construction of new mixed identities is induced by the “technologies of the self, which permit individuals to effect by their own means or with the help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom, perfection, or immortality” (Hall, 1997, p.322). Here, consciousness and interaction play the vital role in identity (re)creation. Self-awareness through conscientisation is the single most important factor which transforms the identity of the British people. Moreover, “one’s knowledge of the intentional representation of the self is what constitutes identity” (Gergen and Gergen, 2003, p.28). It is not necessary in the present context of British society, even a person of White English origins would essentially identify himself/herself as White English. The same goes for the individuals from other social, cultural, racial and nation backgrounds in Britain. Besides, constantly changing lifestyles too play a role in mixing up identities. To exemplify, ‘the identities of people in reality shows and the identities of people in the factories or shopping malls are equally realities’ (Seidman, 2004, p.86). Many people in the Britain do have strong online identities which are by definition mixed and exist in flux. Here, it is relevant to remember the famous assertion by Hall that “there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (1997, p.49). The new archaeologies power stem from the internet have great transformative powers regarding identity (re)construction. The emergence of multiple and variegated identities too is an important feature of the contemporary British society. Adolescent youths from mixed- heritage have multiple identities and according to the requirement of the situation they identify themselves differently. Rarely mixed heritage youth finds them in a marginalised position as they are able to constantly rearticulate their identities and social roles. Barretta et.al have found that “the identities and cultural practices of the mixed-heritage adolescents were fluid and context-dependent, and they appreciated the advantages of being able to negotiate and interact with multiple ethnic worlds” (2007, p.1). It has been noted that youth from mixed- heritage like to project them as a mixed race rather than any other nomenclature. The same goes true with people are not from mixed backgrounds too. Multiple identities are inherently mixed and produce more mixedness. The identity of an African migrant labourer in the United Kingdom would be determined by the combined effect of his/her class, ethnicity and race. It is argued that “social categories are sets of people given a label (or labels) and distinguished by two main features: (1) rules of membership that decide who is and is not a member of the category; and (2) content, that is, sets of characteristics (such as beliefs, desires, moral commitments, and physical attributes) thought to be typical of members of the category, or behaviors expected or obliged of members in certain situations (roles)” ( Fearon and Laitin, 2000, p.848). People of different lifestyles develop their variegated identities in the course of time. However, there is also a tendency among some minority groups to identify with a pure White mainstream culture which is actually non-existent. For instance, “classic confrontation between Afro-American culture and American culture, there is a political and metaphysical, “relationship that black “Signification” bears to the English “signification” is, paradoxically, a relation of difference inscribed within a relation of identity” (Gates, 1988, p.45). Here too, importantly, the emergent identities are necessarily mixed and multiple. Globalisation and Mixedness According to Hall, ‘global and local are the two faces of the same movement from one epoch of globalization, the one which has been dominated by the nation-state, the national economies, the national cultural identities, to something new” (1997b, p.27). The global changes in identities brought up by forces of globalisation are also resulting in local changes in identities. The globalised world which emerged following the end of the cold war marked the beginning of a new ‘cultural turn’. There exist many debates over the particular impact of globalization and the consequent transformations in the realm of culture and identity from a number of conflicting standpoints. Pieterse (1995) is of the view that the so-called introverted ness of a homogenous vulture is rather a myth of modernity as it is no more tied to particular (well defined) places and concrete historical junctures. On the other hand, culture must be viewed as an outward-looking ‘translocal learning process’ (Pieterse, 1995, p.62). Therefore, it is possible to argue that the contemporary British culture and identities essentially going in a mixed path as it is constantly interact with the outside created by global media and information and communication technologies. The present British culture is not a whole way of life; rather, it is fragmented and composed of mixed identities. Capitalist globalisation is the major force behind he fragmentation and hybridisation of identities and culture. As a result of such developments, “the needs that come to be emphasised and realised are those for which actors are able to outbid others because they have an abundance of money, not because those needs are of greater importance or have more human value. Profits are the primary focus rather than issues of humanity” (Ritzer, 1996, p.43). In brief, the traditional monolithic identities are fast replaced by the forces of capital which necessarily disintegrate individuals and communities to integrate them into its social machine. Besides, as Schwartz, “globalization and the erosion of the welfare state really should be understood as the erosion of politically based property rights and their related streams of income, and as reactions to that erosion. Actors with different kinds of property rights put forward policy prescriptions derived from those different property rights in fights over social protection, the public sector and the welfare state” (2001, 44). The rise of the new rich and the demise of the White working class have also contributed to the mixing up of the British identities once they are fully churned by the neoliberal capitalist forces. Thomas L. Friedman famous assertion that the internet is a vehicle for social change is relevant here. The enhanced interconnectivity and interdependence based on information technology have made the world flat wherein hybrid and fluid identities could materialise (2005, p.28). In brief, it is possible to see that cultural change take place in dialectical relationship between the forces at the local and global levels. And, the mutations on local culture give birth to new identities for people that are intersected with many identities and cultures from within the nation and the outside world. Education as the Mixing Machine Contrary to the American society, there is no strict social integrationist policy in the United Kingdom. But, the educational institutions play the role of national integration through pedagogical practices. Still, the education policy in the Britain is aimed at promoting diversity and equality. It is nearly impossible to find overt discrimination in the UK school today. Race relations (Amendment) Act 2000 even prohibits any kind of discrimination in the schools. So, legally speaking there is no racial discrimination and social inequality in the UK. However, the reality is different. One can feel racial discrimination and varied outcomes in educational performance of different racial groups. Chadderton has noted that “Black students as well as students of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin continue to score below the national average in the GCSE examinations which mark the end of compulsory schooling in England” (2010, p.1). The present education system tends to exclude mixed heritage pupils from school as compare to white students. Even though the UK Government is trying its best to curtail racial discrimination in schools, it is not succeeding in this endurance. It has something to do with social relations in the UK, which tends to racialise society. Race has been used as an important tool to differentiate between people. Diversification in schools has helped to penetrate this belief in the society. School system has immensely protected white supremacy in the UK. Chadderton says that “despite a rhetoric of standards for all, education policy in England is actively involved in the defence, legitimation and extension of white supremacy” (2010, p.1). White supremacy connotes the dominance of white people over policy matters and feeling of supremacy over other racial groups and ethnic minorities. However, the situation is changing. Acceptance of multiculturalism has influenced educational policies too. Being a diverse and multiethnic society, it has produced mixed population which has become more and more diverse. In post 1980’s, educational policies regarding ethnic minorities changed from assimilation to that of integration. It was expected that these policies would help mutual respect and understanding in a plural culture. However, multicultural education was unable to pay attention on diverse needs of ethnic minorities and Blacks. On the role of education the United Kingdom, Chadderton argues that it “only succeeded in reproducing inequalities, as other cultures were defined in terms of their being difference from a presumed white British norm” (2010, p 2). The efforts for integration through educational institutions thus ended up as creating fragmentation of identities which, however, positively contributes to the mixed culture. Migration and Mixedness After the collapse of Soviet Union and the braking up of Berlin wall, the world became more of an open space. It has facilitated large scale immigration to the United Kingdom, especially from the Eastern European countries. There is a rise of anti-immigrant policies in the West in general after the collapse of Soviet Union and the subsequent integration of previously marginalised places into the world economy. The arrival of new people from new areas has created so much fear in the psyche of the native people in the West. In the United States, the mainstream society has come to fear what is known as Hispanisation of America. Even well-known theorists such as Huntington has argued that ‘in this new era, the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America's traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico, and the fertility rates of these immigrants compared to black and white American natives’ (Huntington, 2004, p.3). It is nothing more than a beautifully worded fear of the other culture. In the Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular, the fear of islamisation envelops the whole society. One could argue that behind the growing rhetoric about the problems of immigration lies the invisible, hidden and sophisticated racism and xenophobia that ‘our’ culture would be colonized from within by the ‘other’ cultures of immigrants from ‘our’ previous colonies. And, tactically, the whole issue of illegal immigration is reduced to a problem which must be dealt as a law and order issue. The fear politics generated by the constant far right propaganda leads to social polarization and take us to a leap backward from the mixed reality of British culture. There exist many prejudices about minority diaspora communities in the advanced British society. However, the diaspora could organize long term strategies to overcome the glass ceiling. The more thy get represented in the mainstream, the more they could subvert the mainstream with their marginal identities. According to Cumings, the Koreans in America encourage their children to go for science subjects as “since in many other fields there are “glass ceilings” that prevent-Korean Americans from getting top jobs- especially in American corporations, which at the top levels remain overwhelmingly segregated minorities of white males” (458). Such strategies lead to enhanced representation of minorities and the ‘other’ in mainstream spaces and gradually leads to the deconstruction of such social spaces. Mixedness and Media Media is a major vehicle for ensuring the strengthening of multiculturalism. The inclusive media strategies certainly help to represent the excluded and marginalised voices. However, it could also lead to a monological representation of other cultures in the media too. The emergence of multiple diaspora media is certainly an alternative as it could promote diversity in media and news, not simply diversity through media. What is important is that the media itself must be mixed. It is more important than creating a mixed media artificially. It has well noted by many observers that the minority audiences do not favour monolithic representation of their communities by the media. Every community is as heterogeneous as any other or no living community survives as homogenous. Only through the creation of a minority media, it is possible to highlight the heterogeneity of all communities. When we understand all communities as essentially heterogeneous, it becomes a cementing ground for multiculturalism and thereby enhancing mixedness in Britain. It is also important to remember that less discussed minorities such as disable people. Even disabled people are no longer isolated in the society. As a result, “every aspect of society that affects the treatment of disabilities and learning difficulties has changed radically and continues to evolve- the cultural, ethnic and religious profile, patterns of family organisation, economic and occupational structures, the relative status of men and women, and the perception of human rights and social responsibilities” (Frederickson and Cline, 2002, p. 4). Media too plays an important, positive role in changing the social spaces for the differently abled people. At present, new media technologies have profoundly changed the ways content is produced by “unprecedented transformation during the past decades, from audience as passive consumers of media to users as active content creators (Burns, 2010, p. 24). ‘Blogging, filesharing, and feedback and comments’ allow the users to join the process of production and ‘become co-producers’. (Reading, 2006, p.2). The co-production in media is helping diversity in the media further by accommodating the opinion of members of all communities and social groups. Therefore, “the emergence of new subjects, new genders, new ethnicities, new regions, new communities, hitherto excluded from the major forms cultural representation, unable to locate themselves except as de-centered or subaltern, have acquired through struggle, sometimes in very marginalized ways, the means to speak for themselves for the first time” (Hall, 1997, p.34). Now, the mainstream media representation is no manna for the subaltern groups which adds up to the creation of a mixed Britain. Mixedness and the Present Mixedness is quite often wrongly attributed to the different heritage of individuals and communities. No, Mixedness is essentially a question of the present. It happens the present and strengthens itself through the present. For instance, when someone marries a person from community, they actually create Mixedness. In other words, mixedness is always in the making. Mixedness is not simply an ascribed status. It could also be derived from the present in a vibrant multicultural society. The Loss of Whiteness Mixedness is inherently attached to plurality. All encompassing meta-identities cannot survive in the present British society without undergoing great transformations. Increasingly, “imperial views of traditional British identity which rejected debate over cultural diversity and racial equality” are being challenged from around the corners (Tomlinson, 2005, 166). Religious and ethnic identities are not very much part of youths’ identity in the UK and they are silent on their British identity too. Whiteness or Blackness was not important aspects of mixed-heritage youths. They do not consider whiteness with Englishness and feeling of getting sandwiched between two cultures is also not part of their mentality. It is easy to see the idea that totality or wholeness British culture and whiteness as vague; Foucault questions “which strata should be isolated from others? What types of series should be established? What criteria of periodization should be adopted for each of them? What system of relations (hierarchy, dominance, stratification, univocal determination, circular causality) may be established between them? What series of series may be established? And in what large-scale chronological table may distinct series of events be determined?” (Foucault, 2002, p.4). Along the same lines, Hall argues that the notion of English Whiteness is a manufactured homogeneity as “it was always negotiated against difference. It always had to absorb all the differences of class, of religion, of gender, in order to present itself as a homogeneous entity” (Hall, 1997b, p.22). The changes in the family structure and system are also contributing to the erosion of English Whiteness as “fewer people than in the past spend the whole of their childhood with their biological parents and siblings in a household comprising a traditional nuclear family. Divorce is more common, and more men and women choose to cohabit without marrying. By the mid-1990s it was estimated that just over 1 in 14 of all families with dependent children in Great Britain were stepfamilies” (Frederickson and Cline, 2002, p. 4). The emergence of lesbian and gay families too has significantly changed the family structures and its relations to the child and thereby the making of multiple identities. Even, the focus of new racism was more cultural racism rather than biological racism. Question of prioritisation of identity never arises for mixed heritage youth as they were able to accept different identity in different context. Mixed heritage youths are very much assimilated into social and cultural practices of the UK. For this group Britain’s cultural heritage and diversity is matter of pride but they have some reservation about discriminatory practices used by the police. Conclusion The developed societies of the West in general are facing a profound ethnic transformation from exclusive White society to inclusive multicultural mixed society. The United Kingdom too is no exception for this mixedness of races, groups and minorities. One of the important changes is that the society at large exists sans a homogenous majority. The contemporary British society is characterised by the prevalence of minorities. The emergence of new social groups such as lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, transgenders, inter-racial people has contributed to the practical deconstruction of the mainstream White society and the making of counter society of mixed minorities. Mixedness cannot and should not be seen as a product of different heritages. Mixedness emerges from the present. It is quintessentially a product of the multicultural society. Mixedness could be seen as a British way of life wherein people from all backgrounds interact, collaborate, share, create and enjoy at various social spaces in different intensities. References Akbar, N (1996), Breaking the chains of psychological slavery. Tallahassee: Mind Production & Associates, Inc. Barretta, M et.al. (2007), ‘Identifications and cultural practices of mixed-heritage youth’, Paper presented in the eConference on “Mixedness and Mixing: New Perspectives on Mixed-Race Britons”, Commission for Racial Equality, pp. 4-6. Bhambra, GK (2007), ‘Sociology and postcolonialism: Another ‘missing’ revolution? Sociology. 41 (5). pp. 871-884 Bruns, A (2010), ‘Distributed creativity: Filesharing and produsage’, in Stefan Sonvilla-Weiss, Mashup cultures, ed.. Vienna: Springer, pp. 24-37. Chadderton, C (2010), ‘Educational policy and minority: Ethnic young people in the UK’, Network Migration in Europe, pp. 1-7, Accssed on 05 Apr 2011, Available from Cumings, B (2005), Korea’s Place in the Sun. New York: W.W Norton & Company. Gates, HL Jr. (1988), The Signifying monkey: A theory of Afro-American literary criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 44-89 Frederickson, N and Cline, T (2002), Special education needs inclusion and diversity: A text book, Buckingham: Open University Press. Foucault, M (2002), The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. Sheridan, A. London: Routledge. Firedman, TL (2005), The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gergen, M and Gergen, K (eds) (2003), Social construction: A reader, London: Sage. Fearon, JD and Laitin, DD (2000), ‘Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity . International Organization, Vol. 54 , pp. 845-877. Hall, S (1997a), Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publishers/Open University Press. Hall, S (1997b), 'The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity' in A. King (ed.), Culture, Globalization and the World-system: Contemporary Conditions for the Representaion of Identity, London: Macmillan. Huntington, S (2004), ‘The Hispanic challenge’, Foreign Policy, March/April, Available at: Pieterse, JN & Parekh, B (1995), The decolonization of imagination: Culture, knowledge and power. London: Zed Books. Reding, V (2006), ‘The Disruptive force of Web 2.0: How the new generation will define the future’ , Youth Forum, ITU Telecom World, Hong Kong, Europa, viewed on 04 April 2011, Available at Ritzer, G (1996), ‘The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and McDonaldization of Contemporary Society’, Classical Sociological Theory. pp.41-60. Schwartz, H (2001), ‘Round up the usual suspects!: Globalization, domestic politics, and welfare state change’, in Paul Pierson (ed.): The new politics of the welfare state, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-44 Seidman, S (2004), Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today (3rd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell. Song, M (2010), ‘Is there ‘a’ mixed race group in Britain? The diversity of multiracial identification and experience’, Critical Social Policy, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 337-358. Tomlinson, S (2005), Race, ethnicity and education under New Labour. Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 153-171. Read More