The Benefits of Diversity to British Society - Essay Example

The Benefits of diversity to British society The Benefits of diversity to British society and how such a diversity society may cause its own tension and conflict The Benefits of diversity to British society and how such a diversity society may cause its own tension and conflict The fast pace of the world and alarming transition is bringing forth constant challenges. National, ethnic and cultural diversity seems to be existent in all nations including Britain. Cities exhibit the same cultural diversity, be it New York or London or Paris. (Wood et al, 2006, p. 1). The number of languages spoken in London comes to 300. Non indigenous people number nearly 10000 in each of 50 communities. The Muslim population number 607083 people but diversity is noted here as in any Muslim nation. The white constitute only 59.8% of the population of London. The migration of people into Britain including work permit holders in 2003 was 119000. When the increase in the population was 2.2 million, 1.14 million was from abroad. Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester and Oldham have Pakistanis and Indians. French, Portuguese, Greeks, Poles and Zimbabweans make up smaller proportions of the foreign- born. However when the second generation who are citizens are considered, the number just swells (Wood et al, 2006, p. 2). The debate on the diversity issue is an ongoing one. Originally the issues dwelled on how many people Britain could accommodate as new citizens. The conservative right viewed immigration as a threat to the national perspective (Banting and Will, 2004). Tensions are possible in 2 situations: the “heterogeneity/redistribution” tension and the recognition/ redistribution. In the first, social policies are difficult to implement because of the difficulty in eliciting trust and national solidarity among the ethnic groups or different races. Occasionally the multiculturalism policies increase the tension between diversity and social solidarity. Both reduce the support for redistribution. A British sociologist, T.H.Marshall, believed that citizenship must possess a feeling of community and have the feelings of trust, reciprocity or mutual obligation. The immigrants having been awarded many social benefits called social citizenship, developed a national consciousness (1950, p.8). Social capital is hindered by ethnicity issues. Trusting one’s neighbours and getting involved in the social networks supports the capacity for collective action (Putnam, 2000). It is difficult to earn the trust of minorities when compared to the majority; trusting across racial differences is a challenge. However other factors like income, gender, age and social spending appear to score over ethnicity. The level of social spending in ethnic diversity depends on the amount of economic development, age distribution of the population, the proportion of working women, organised labour, the ruling parties whether left or right and the electoral system (Banting and Will, 2004). The realisation of what Britain could be is the bigger issue now. Finding means of responding to new forms of diversity is the best way to facilitate redistribution. Diversity as such does not hinder redistribution; it is the acceptance and tolerance of multiculturalism that is the boulder (Barry, 2001). Over the years, the European Union has emerged powerful but conflicts persist. The decentralisation of powers to all parts of the nations; the September 11 attacks in America, international terrorism spreading fear, frightening stories about asylum have contributed to the conflicts. Institutional racism and parallel lives have been the new concepts found after issues like the Stephen Lawrence murder and civil disturbances. Poverty and economic crises have troubled the whole population, white or black. The globalisation of the political economy has increased the opportunities for those who can reach out due to their qualifications but remain far away for those who are not so. Racism and discrimination happen to be the primary cause of unrest (Wood et al, 2006, p. 2). Resources have become scarce and heavy competition fouls the atmosphere. Britain has practised liberalism by accepting multiculturalism. Management of the situation of the public order and the development of the relationship between all groups of populations whether minority or majority helped the process of weaving a mixed and tolerant society (Favell, 2001). All religions were tolerated and allowed to have their own places of worship. Legislation supported the religious freedom and human rights. Recently, in 2006, however doubts have arisen in many quarters as to whether the purpose has been achieved by the traditional sceptics, socialists and liberalists (Goodhart, 2004). Though multiculturalism was rampant, new ideas or norms were not allowed to evolve; priests decided the strict code of behaviour. New ideas were not permitted (Cantle, 2005, p. 47). Perhaps there was no harmony yet. People probably thought that keeping separate was better and that integration was not important. Opinionists believed that multiculturalism was only needed for the minorities who had to go by the rules of the majority. Many of them were thereby led into extremism.The British culture and values has been changing in a type of hybridisation that constant evolution or transition is causing (Amin, 2002). Diversity has made the British accept or tolerate other cultures but their conservatism hinders their adaptation. The picture is different in America and Canada. The diversity there is regarded as a source for “potential opportunity and advantage” (Wood et al, 2006). A heterogenous nation is believed to be better equipped with new opportunities, product innovations, competitiveness and the capacity to overcome the difficulties. The diverse atmosphere produces better business opportunities at home and abroad: “supplier diversity, better prices and a variety of goods” would be available (Ram et al, 2002). Openness in an intercultural society allows one to respect, acknowledge and encourage one another and later be absorbed as citizens. It also implies the degree to which “institutions adapt to changing demography, diversifying their governance, management or programming” (Wood et al, 2006, p. 7). “Mutual learning and joint growth” is the process suggested in interculturalism (Antal and Friedman, 2003). Four spheres of influence of openness are usually found in any city: institutional framework, business environment, civil society and public space. Workforce diversity is one aspect of multicultural diversity (Thomas and Ely, 2001). People developed tensions due to diversity but managed them. Three perspectives are studied by Thomas and Ely, 2001: the integration and learning perspective, the access and legitimacy perspective and the discrimination and fairness perspective. All the perspectives met with success where the motivation of managers was concerned; they had succeeded in diversifying their staff. Only the integration and learning perspective were influenced to achieve the reason and guidance of diversity. Workforce diversity is used to increase work group effectiveness (Thomas and Ely, 2001). Diversity has been examined to discover work group effectiveness. Conclusions Britain has a multiculturally diverse population which presents many challenges to the nation. The diversity issue has caused tensions and conflicts which have disturbed the manner of redistribution. The British are finding means of facilitating redistribution to overcome the problems of diversity by accepting it. Mutual learning and joint growth is the process adopted. Workforce diversity produces work group effectiveness. References: Amin, A. (2002) ‘Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity’, report for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the ESRC Cities Initiative Antal, A.B. and Friedman, V. (2003) Negotiating Reality as an Approach to Intercultural Competence. Discussion Paper SP III 2003-101. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung Banting, Keith and Will Kymlicka (2004). “Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State?”in Philippe van Parijs, ed., Cultural Diversity versus Economic Solidarity. Brussels: Deboeck Université Press. Cantle, T. (2005) Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Favell, A. (2001) ‘Multi-ethnic Britain: an exception in Europe?’, Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 35–57 Goodhart, D. (2004) ‘Too diverse?’, Prospect, February Marshall, T.H. (1950). “Citizenship and Social Class,” in T.H. Marshall and T. Bottomore, eds., Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press [1950] 1992. Putnam, Robert (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ram, M., Smallbone, D. and Linneker, B. (2002) Assessing the Potential of Supplier Diversity Initiatives as a Means of Promoting Diversification amongst Ethnic Minority Businesses in the UK. Sheffield: SBS Research Directorate Thomas, D.A. &Ely, R.J. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, Issue 2, Pg. 229, Cornell University Wood, P., Landry, C. & Bloomfield, J. (2006). Cultural diversity in Britain: A toolkit for cross-cultural cooperation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation: York Read More