The Multicultural Model in Practice - Essay Example

Does the multicultural model work in practice? Introduction The debate about multiculturalism in the United Kingdom has intensified in recent years as new population groups demand their place in the British sun. For years, it was the accepted wisdom that immigrants and people who made their way to the shores of the United Kingdom simply had to assimilate, adopt the ways of the British, speak like those in the mainstream, eat like those in the mainstream, and conduct themselves like those in the mainstream in order to fit into the society. In fact, while this was the conventional wisdom it seems also that people who went to the UK from the colonies or from other parts of the world did not have much of a choice in the matter because having very few people from a similar background in their new home, the only way they could survive and prosper was to go along with the efforts at assimilation favoured by those in the mainstream for newcomers. And then came the Brixton riots, which revealed that the nation had been living in a stupor, falsely believing that the efforts at assimilation had been working to create a harmonious society. In the aftermath of the nation’s soul searching the model that emerged was one of multiculturalism, a system that finally took notice that not only were some of the new immigrants to Britain different but also that these people did not necessarily want to assimilate, which is not to say that the new arrivals did not like the UK or its people. Although there are still people who insist that newcomers need to assimilate, in recent years, there has been a shift towards multiculturalism, including the recognition that newcomers do not have to dress like those who were born in the country, eat like those born in the country, or even talk like those born on British soil. Being British, according to this new model, should transcend markers of dress, speech, or even values! Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the September 11th attack and the bombings in London, some have come to see in the efforts at multiculturalism a powder keg for increased tension among the different communities and population groups that characterize the United Kingdom of today. The old model: efforts at assimilation Those who espoused the old model of assimilation believed that if newcomers adopted the ways of mainstream all would be well for both sides. In the post-1945 era, many of the immigrants who came to Britain arrived from former colonies and were “motivated by loyalty as well as hope for advancement, to take on the dirty and dangerous tasks that native citizens no longer wanted to do” (Gilroy 2). Coming into the home of their former masters, these immigrants devoted themselves to work and tried to stay out of the way. The assimilation favoured by the mainstream, however, had its limits because immigrants were safe as long as they knew their “place” and did not try to storm the bastions of privilege and opportunity that the country had to offer even though Britain, in its days of empire, had gone to distant worlds to pillage and to loot and to add to the storehouses of the nation’s treasury. As one South African, Dan Jacobson, who came to the United Kingdom in the 1950s observes, “When I came here…England struck me as a country bound together, even made up by a network of reciprocal allusions: localities, institutions, festivals, foods, character-types, historical references and antagonisms, class indicators and suchlike…Together, it all led to the sense I had of ‘Englishness’ as something private, reserved, semi-instinctive, inherently resistant to foreign intrusions” (Cowley 26). This resistance meant that even though masses of people had come to the mother country from the colonies they were in many ways cut off from the mainstream. While the first generation of immigrants might have had the fortitude to endure the humiliations that came with occupying a marginal place, their children and their grandchildren, born in the UK and feeling a sense of birthright to the UK, along with the desire to enjoy full rights as citizens, no longer acquiesced to remain in their place. Brixton 1981: The big jolt While immigrants scrounged at the margins of society, most in mainstream British society believed that all was business as usual, until in 1981, the Brixton riots woke up the nation to its deeply racist nature and forced the hand of the nation to seek another means of accommodating the new arrivals, who were not so new anymore after two, three, or even four generations. As Alan Cowell writes in the article, “What Britain Can Tell France About Rioters,” “Twenty-four years ago, riots in the mainly black district of Brixton were regarded as a turning point in Europe’s struggle to absorb its former colonial subjects…After Brixton, Britain adopted policies that in some ways echoed America’s response to its own urban racial disturbances. They encouraged Britons to embrace ethnic diversity, although they fell short of American-style affirmative action, which Britons see as illegal discrimination” (Cowell 4). The young black people who vented their rage were fed up of endless police searches, discrimination and high rates of unemployment and a sense of hopelessness. At the time the political elite of the UK “seemed dumbfounded when rage erupted into violence. More than 300 people were injured and 83 buildings and 23 vehicles where damaged over the course of several nights” (Cowell 4). The government plunged headlong into promoting multiculturalism and in setting up systems that would ensure that the systemic racism that was endemic in British society became moderated. A report commissioned by the British government in the aftermath of the Brixton riots, under retired justice, Lord Scarman, pointed out that “racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life,” and that “urgent action is needed if it is not to become an endemic, ineradicable disease” (Cowell 4). The government threw itself into the task of promoting multiculturalism and helping to prepare the way for a brighter, better day for immigrants in the UK. As Cowell writes, “The government lent new support to community centers, ethnic festivals, the use of other languages in documents and the like” (Cowell 4). Multiculturalism As the numbers of immigrants swelled and the people became comfortable perpetuating their traditional cultures, including the wearing of traditional clothing and openly displaying various markers of the old culture, there were calls for more recognition for each of these communities and for less pressure to be piled on these newcomers to become more like those in the mainstream. There are those, however, who believe that the concept of multiculturalism will only further divide society because it stresses differences rather than focuses on what unites the British as a whole, regardless of where they may have come from. While some see the multiculturalism as a success others see in it a recipe for a brewing disaster. According to Sunder Katwala, general secretary of the Fabian Society, “Multicultural societies are not just possible, but unavoidable. Parts of Britain have come as close as anywhere to racial diversity simply being a settled fact of everyday life. We have an enriching ethnic and cultural diversity that has transformed this tight little, white little island for the better. What we need, too, is common citizenship and the ties that bind a society together” (Cowley 26). On the other hand, Mick Hume, editor of spiked-online.com notes that “Multiculturalism seems to be an attempted solution that only makes the problem worse. The problem is the loss of cohesion in society, with the decline of the traditional values of both left and right” (Cowley 26). Twenty-five years after the Brixton riots, and after multiculturalism that is supposed to make society better alienation is still very much a reality for some children and grandchildren of immigrants. Indeed, some people born in Britain but whose parents may have come from elsewhere feel almost as alienated from British society as their parents because even though they may have British citizenship they do not have a sense of belonging. Their color, origin of their parents, religion, may make it difficult for those in the mainstream to accept them and treat them with equality and respect. In the article “Belonging is multi-layered,” Nira Yuval-Davis reminds readers that “the current debate about Britishness starts with what I call ‘the politics of belonging’, much of which is about determining who does or does not belong, regardless of their formal citizenship status. The politics of belonging is not only about citizenship or identities, but also about emotional attachment, securities and insecurities, dividing the world between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ (Yuval-Davis 2). In the aftermath of the London bombings many Muslims have felt that the increased scrutiny on their community and the stereotypes that they have to deal with make life for them in the UK less than satisfying. Not surprisingly, “Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have thought about leaving Britain after the London bombings, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll…The poll also shows that tens of thousands of Muslims have suffered from increased Islamophobia, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks. Police have recorded more than 1,200 suspected Islamophobic incidents across the country ranging from verbal abuse to one murder in the past three weeks. The poll suggests the headline figure is a large underestimate” (Dodd 1). Such widespread feelings of angst do nothing to promote cohesiveness in British society because as noted above, many of these people who feel uncomfortable really do not have anywhere else to go. The UK is their home and where they would really like to continue to live and contribute to their neighbourhoods and the society at large. The New Labour government recognizes the importance of not alienating whole sections of the British population and has tried to promote initiatives that will lessen those feelings of alienation among the communities that differ from the mainstream in one way or another. One such institution that has been set up to give some legal teeth to the government’s efforts is the Commission for Racial Equality, which has statutory powers under the Race Relations Act 1976 to “advise or assist people with complains about racial discrimination, harassment or abuse…conduct formal investigations of companies and organizations where there is evidence of possible discrimination…assist individuals to take judicial review action to challenge decisions of public bodies, including their compliance to the statutory duty to promote race equality ('the race equality duty') (The CRE’s legal powers http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/legalpowers.html). The work of the CRE is commendable especially since worries have been raised that in recent years “instead of looking for ways of encompassing difference by equality, we are going back to a view of society in which everyone has to conform to a mythical, homegenous ‘British culture.’ (Yuval-Davis 3). Some people have denounced multiculturalism because they see it as being antithetical to Britishness. This, Tariq Modood argues, is a false debate because the two, Britishness and multiculturalism, need not be seen as mutually exclusive choices. As Modood notes, equal dignity and equal respect are key tenets of multiculturalism. Whereas equal dignity appeals to the humanity of people equal treatment, like what the black Civil Rights movement demanded in the 1960s in America, is a universal idea (Modood 2). Equal respect, as Modood sees it, is an even more central to multiculturalims. “As the American feminist Iris Young has argued, any public space, any policy, any society is structured around certain kinds of understandings, around practices that are inherited, which prioritizse some cultural values and behaviors over others…Historically, this cultural structure will have come from a dominant group. When subordinate, oppressed or marginal groups claim equality, they are demanding not to be marginal, subordinate or excluded. We too, they are saying, our values, our norms, our voice, should be part of the public space. (Modood 2). This demand from some of the erstwhile invisible groups reflect the increasing confidence of these population groups within British society and the feeling that they do not have to sacrifice the values that they hold dear. It may be that prior to coming to Britain some of these people may have idealised the society, seeing it as a place where a sense of fairness reigns. Living in the UK and finding that it is a society that still harbours much that is ugly about human beings, namely racism, these people whose values may begin to seem ‘superior’ believe then that it would be folly for them to throw those values away and embrace the totality of mainstream values. Multiculturalism does not mean separation. Rather, it is an integrative concept in contradistinction to the old model of assimilation which is one-way: “people come into an existing society, and try to be like what already exists. But integration is about fitting people together, so there is interaction, give and take, and mutual change and the creation of something new” (Modood 4). By fits and starts it seems that British society is moving towards a sense of pluralistic integration and redefining what it means to be British. As Modood points out, “Nationality, such as British, French, American, or Canadian, is an important container for multiculturalism. It is central to the integrative dynamic;” (Modood 4). Some of those who worry that multiculturalism is a dividing force need not worry, according to Nigel Harris, because enforced conformity goes against the spirit of openness and democracy that are supposed to be a part of British values. For those who hold fast to the values in their discussion of integration, The talk seems to have an unstated agenda. It goes something like this; the nation state is constituted not by subordination to a given state and system of laws, but by a set of shared values that arise from a shared, collective history of living together and collaborating. Newcomers, by definition, do not share these values. So, they must either acquire them (and be tested to ensure they have imbibed them correctly) or they must have them instilled into them, in order to learn how to collaborate and so earn the trust of the native-born. Without this, it is said, social collaboration (‘social cohesiveness’) in the current bureaucratese) will break down and, at worst, society will be riven with conflict. (Harris 2) As Harris explains, traditionally, the method of choice has been to shame, ridicule, or punish those who spoke different languages or had different accents so that they would conform to the values and norms of those with power in the society. “Similar treatment has been meted out to those who ate different food, dressed differently or had different rituals for expressing respect or deference; all in the name of establishing one exclusive monopoly culture, language and style of life” (Harris 3). Harris challenges the need to have common values in order to collaborate. Only goodwill and respect are necessary for people living in a community to collaborate with one another. “To ask of the foreign-born that they espouse a particular set of values, whatever these are, is not only totalitarian, it is discriminatory. We do not require of the native-born that they should embrace one single set of values – they are free to commit themselves to whatever crackpot values takes their fancy, provided they obey the law (until it is changed). So it should be, as it always was in the past, with the foreign-born – provided they obey the law, their ‘values’ are no business of the state” (Harris 4). Conclusion Thanks to multiculturalism British society is more open today and there are intersections at the boundaries of the different communities that signal that despite the different values and community priorities there is still much that unites those who share British citizenship and see Britain as their home. Multiculturalism, however, is far from perfect as Jason Cowley aptly points out: “The majority culture – Anglophone, tolerant, broadly liberal, skeptical, Christian in ethos if not in practice – remains strong. But other cultures are threatening and subverting it, forcing concessions and change. Much of this change is good such as the recognition of the rights of minorities or a respect for racial difference. But there are also areas of more problematic conflict, where the recognition of minority-group rights and identities, and the demand for exemptions from national laws, clash with a broader liberal consensus, on say, animal rights or women’s liberation” (Cowley 26). After the London bombings there were fears that some of the gains of multiculturalism would be rolled back. When British Prime Minister Tony Blair said after the bombings that coming to Britain was not a right and that staying in Britain carried with it a duty and that those who instigated violence had not place in the country (Cowell 4), some were alarmed but he was simply telling the truth because few societies would welcome violence as an acceptable part of their society. To the question of whether multiculturalism works in practice, the answer would have to be yes, and that Great Britain is finally coming around to live as much of the world has for thousands of years. As Cowley notes, “What is often forgotten or ignored in the debate about multiculturalism is that most countries in the world are multiethnic and genuinely multicultural, and must thus strive to rule by racial consensus. There are arc exceptions – Japan, South Korea, China, where the Han Chinese make up between 85 and 90 per cent of the population. But in the main, an important part of what it means to be human is to understand and adapt to cultural difference – ethnic racial, tribal, linguistic, religious, territorial” (Cowley 26). Bibliography Cowell, Alan. “What Britain Can Tell France About Rioters.” New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) (Nov 20, 2004):4. Cowley, Jason. “This is not the country it was when Labour returned to power in 1997). Vol. 17 Issue 800 (Mar 29, 2004):26. Davis, Nira Yuval. “Belonging is multi-layered.” Connections, Winter 2004/5 http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/connections/articles/04wi=belonging.html (2006/04/18). Dodd, Vikram. “Two-thirds of Muslims consider leaving UK.” The Guardian, Tuesday July 26 2005 http://www.refuseandresist.org/detentions/art.php (2006/04/18). Gilroy, Paul. “From a Colonial Past to a New Multiculturalism.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51 Issue 18 (Jan 7, 2005):B7. Hall, Ian. “CIPR diversity policy aims to broaden industry reach.” PR Week, (Jul 22, 2005):2. Harris, Nigel. “Integration into what?” http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/connections/articles/04wi_integration_what.html (2006/04/18) “Increasing participation and raising the achievement of black and minority group adults in post-16 education.” http:///www.niace.org.uk/Information/Briefing_sheets/40_BEM.htm (2006/04/18) “The CRE’s legal powers.” http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/legalpowers.html (2006/04/18) Read More