Multiculturalism Promotes Social Segregation. Discuss - Essay Example

?0705809 Multiculturalism Promotes Social Segregation. Discuss This essay will attempt to analyze the concept of multiculturalism from varied vantagepoints. Though, multiculturalism is a term that one of and on comes across in the contemporary modern society, it in no way facilitates a pragmatic understanding of the concept as the term under consideration is open to varied interpretations. The first part of the essay will discuss the term multiculturalism from the perspective of the key theorists like Malik and Parekh. The second part will evaluate the premise whether multiculturalism promotes segregation, and if so, why? The third part of the essay will look at the concept of multiculturalism in the context of Britain and France. The paper will try to rationally access the fact as to whether UK is truly a multicultural society and does multiculturalism has some measure of positive relevance for the British society. With respect to France, the paper will look into why the French give no consideration to the concept of multiculturalism and as to why they cherish and encourage citizenship over multiculturalism. As already said, the term multiculturalism has acquired a ubiquitous usage in current times; still the reality is that this term needs to be interpreted in relation to the context in which it is used. The most commonly held belief is that multiculturalism is about the celebration of diverse cultures and about accepting the varied values, social systems and ethnic backgrounds coexisting in a society. To put it simply, multiculturalism is primarily about respecting and accepting differences so as to facilitate social and cultural integration. Well, is this multiculturalism is all about, or is it a convenient term to sideline the segregation heaped on varied sections of a society. Most of the times, people and even experts shudder at the very idea dissecting the term multiculturalism probably fearing that it may give way to some kind of undesirable backlash. Thus, nobody ever dared to arrive at a realistic and viable definition of multiculturalism. However, there are some debates building up around the ideas of multiculturalism and diversity, the possible fall of multiculturalism, because of it being a pseudo system that promotes segregation, though on the surface it professes to respect cultural, religious and ethnic diversity. It is an attempt to understand multiculturalism as a cacophonous discourse that camouflages the invisibility and isolation existing in the multicultural societies. The report by Parekh (2000) interestingly discusses the concept of multiculturalism in both the British and French context. The central argument of Parekh is that though both the countries are multicultural in a simplistic sense of the word, there exists is a great difference as to the magnitude of acceptance for the concept of multiculturalism in both the nations. France does not acknowledge multiculturalism, but rather encourages and supports citizenship (Parekh 2000). France requires the citizens who are not familiar with the French culture and heritage, to educate themselves about them (Parekh 2000). It is somewhat akin to the German stance; when one considers the recent remarks by Merkel declaring that multiculturalism has failed and it’s time to face this fact. As per Merkel, the concept of multiculturalism was contrived to get people together, but instead it has separated them and has created conflicts amongst groups. Interestingly, Parekh (2000) evinces a great interest in the politics of multiculturalism. The recent political reforms are raising queries as to how varied interest groups tend to manipulate the concept of multiculturalism for their own political gains. The adherents of multiculturalism consider it to be essentially organic and solid, yet they do fail to see its practical implications. They only tend to do so when the conservatives put forth the arguments pertaining to the failure of multiculturalism. Though multiculturalism has to do with respect and humanity, still the truth is that cultural differences do create conflicts. So everyone may not be able to relate to multiculturalism in its most complex sense. The common observation supports the fact that in the UK for example there exist differences between the Asians and the British White Community. Each group has its own distinct taste for food, dress and values. There is a positive side to it that both the groups do try to embrace some of the preferences of eachother. For example the Indian food has become so popular in the UK that it is virtually considered to be an authentic part of the British cuisine. However, the problematic aspect of multiculturalism is that some sections of the White Britons may feel lost and marginalized in their own country and may resent the changes taking place in the British culture, values and tradition in the name of multiculturalism. Malik (2002) believes that there are two facets or two components of the concept of multiculturalism. One of the aspects rests on the claim that multiculturalism subdues the conflicts between different cultures, which sometimes give way to racism. Malik (2002) states that “ They claim that multiculturalism is the only means of assuring a tolerant and democratic polity in a world in which there are deep-seated conflicts between cultures embodying different values. This argument is often linked to the claim that the attempt to establish universal norms inevitably leads to racism and tyranny”. The counter claim to this argument is what some sections of the political community are currently debating about that is multiculturalism has failed or as Trevor Philips (2004) puts it, “sleep walking to segregation”. In Britain there resides a large Asian community that is concentrated in specific pockets rather than being spread around the nation. This nurtures a mutual isolation in both the Asians and the White Britons. This phenomenon shuns integration of communities and does not allow for a mingling of ideas and cultures. Consequently, both these sections of the British society may sometimes feel lost in their own country. So far, the discussion was primarily limited to the external cultural attributes like food and family values. Now, it’s time to focus on the more complex attributes of multiculturalism. In fact, such an attempt is to some extent indicative of the fact that perhaps multiculturalism is to some extent creating segregation amongst communities. In a political context, the term multiculturalism could be interpreted in varied hues and contexts. Hence, it is important to analyze the political aspects of multiculturalism as many times these aspects come from the politicians themselves. Modood and Werbner (1997) have delved amply on the politics of multiculturalism in Europe and the diverse ideologies behind it. They described that politicians do tend to have a stake in what seems to be cultural struggles and hence they use the term multiculturalism to assure people affiliated to their specific vote banks. If one looks at the composition of the British society, it is definitely multicultural. However, the conservative argument is that if the nation is aspiring to embrace multiculturalism, then it is akin to ignoring the traditional culture of Britain. It is this very premise that allows the conservatives to reject the idea of multiculturalism. The British, like other nationalities, identify themselves by their values. Yet, nobody stops to wonder that being British may mean different thing to different people. Phillips (2004) believes that Britishness is a strong concept but not all embracing or monolithic in its interpretation. One of the most controversial arguments put forward by Philips (2004) is that “we are sleep walking towards segregation”. What this statement implies is that even though Britain is considered to be multicultural and the nation tries to embrace this identity through rituals celebrating different cultural backgrounds, yet, this very thing may lead to segregation because people may not prefer to integrate on someone else’s terms, expectations and conditions. Though UK discernibly describes itself as multicultural, yet some people may feel that it is so, while the other may feel to the contrary. Acceptance for multiculturalism is hinged to some practical considerations. One perspective may be that the coming of immigrants to the UK means more earning hands and hence more taxpayers contributing to the national economy. However, this may also mean to some a need for the sharing of resources and civic amenities like housing with more people. Some White Britons may regard the gesture of sharing of the economic and civic resources with other ethnic groups as being unfair and undesirable. This may motivate them to support the argument that nobody anymore cares for the British values and way of life. The political pressure groups like BNP may use such instances to support the premise that multiculturalism is giving way to conflict between cultures and is on the whole an outrageous concept. The recent events in the UK like the 2001 Bradford riots and 7/7 bombings may extend credibility to the detractors of Multiculturalism. In contrast, this might also inhibit some of the colored Britons from learning about the British culture and what it means to be British. Actually they may feel isolated and sidelined. This leads to lack of communication and integration amongst groups. What is evident here is that both the cultures being referred to may feel conflicted by this. Thus, it is more than important to understand that varied cultures have their own specific needs and an ignorance of these needs by the well intentioned people and institutions gives way to a backlash. Guilbernau and Rex (2001: p. 241) aptly mention that “in a multicultural society, different communities have different needs and some might be structurally disadvantaged or lack the skill and the confidence to participate in mainstream society and avail of its opportunities, both justice and the need to foster a common sense of belonging then require such measures as group-differentiated rights, culturally differentiated applications of law and policies, state support for minority institutions and a judicious program of affirmative action”. This however can create conflicts amongst different cultural groups by challenging the hitherto simplistic idea of citizenship prevalent in the UK. As earlier mentioned, France disapproves of the idea of multiculturalism, but instead highly favors the concept of citizenship. The French notion is about respecting the traditional French values and making sure every citizen by virtue of one’s citizenship gets access to the same rights as available to any French national. The French emphasis on the importance of citizenship speaks volumes about the French approach. The primary premise behind this approach is that values and traditions are never fluid and hence the French want the immigrants to work on and be proud of their citizenship by taking citizenship classes. The French tradition only gives credence to citizenship and has no scope for the concept of minority. The citizens could be a minority with respect to their opinions and beliefs, but never a minority so far as their permanent and organized status as a citizen is concerned. The recent banning of the Burkah in France is an apt example of how the French define integration. They consider the French values and way of thought the part and parcel of citizenship and hold that Burkah and integration are two incompatible entities. To the French, Burkah simply hampers communication and integration between two citizens as it is not possible to meaningfully communicate and interact with a person whose face is covered. For the French, citizenship is a two way bond between a nation and a citizen, defined by responsibilities and prerogatives on both sides. To conclude, though multiculturalism is the most talked about concept in the contemporary Western societies, still it is also a term that could be conveniently used to hide the underlying festering issues and problems. Now is the time to engage in debate about the varied interpretations and aspects of multiculturalism. Such an endeavor do needs to look at the political hues and shades existing around multiculturalism, as these ideas do mostly originate from the politicians who use this term to placate their specific followers. Also, the supporters of multiculturalism do sometimes work against its cause by making the idea of assimilation and Britishness to be suffocating, monolithic and straight jacketed. There also exists a dire need to look into the pragmatic economic and social scarcities that impact the support for or opposition to multiculturalism. Yet, multiculturalism may mean different things to different people. To the British it may mean assimilation of minorities with their unique social systems and values, while to the French it may mean an extension of similar rights and responsibilities to all the citizens, leaving everything else to be superfluous and unnecessary. Bibliography Back, L. and Solomos, J., eds (2000) Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, edn London: Routledge. Bennett, D., ed (1998) Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity, edn. London: Routledge. Fortier., M., (2008) Multicultural Horizons, Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation, ed: Routledge Gilroy, P., (1997) Diaspora and the Detours of Identity. In: Woodward.,K ed, Identity and Difference, London: Sage Open University Press. Gulbernau M., Rex J., (2010) The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration 2nd Edition: Polity Press. Malik K., (2002) Against Multiculturalism [online] available at: http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/against_mc.html Madood, T. and Werbner, P., eds (1997) The Politics of Multiculturalism in the new Europe: Racism, Identity and Community, edn. London: Zed Books. Perekh B., (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, edn London: Macmillan. Phillips, T., (2004) So What Exactly is Multiculturalism [online] available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600791.stm Read More