Can We Have a Universal Common Identity - Coursework Example

Can We Have a Universal Common Identity 0. Introduction The concept of common identity is one that can be referred to as a controversial one. Various schools of thought have varying opinions on whether common identity is valid for societies or not. Some are of the contrary opinion towards blood and origin being the major determiner of our identity as they limit people’s lives as well as the choices they make in life. However, other analysts and researchers are of the view that origins can be a perfect tool for uniting people of a common origin. In light to this argument, one would question Europe’s colonial past in relation to the racial and national ideologies it has held. This therefore leads to the debate on the expectations of EU functionalities or should individuals stick to their own beliefs and attitudes on multiculturalism. This paper tries to study the concept of Universal Common Identity on a Philosophical viewpoint by briefly outlining the key issues, concepts and central debates that define the theme, relating the issues, concepts and debates identified in the relevant areas of contemporary political philosophy as articulated in Adam Swif’s Political Philosophy text, and evaluating the relative strong points and limitations of the different perspectives of the theme. More specifically, the essay shall focus on UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Euroscepticism as case studies to explain multiculturalism. 2.0. The key issues, concepts and central debates that define Universal Common Identity- UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Euroscepticism case studies 2.1. UK Independence Party (UKIP) case study As Swift argues liberals fail to recognise the importance of communal relationships, common identity and shared values (164). According to the liberals, it is very difficult for persons to share the same identity as they are excepted to term themselves free and equal citizens once in the society at large (Swift 164). This is not possible as individuals have their own beliefs and attitudes in their personal lives. For instance, one may believe in the teachings of Islam, another may be a strong believer in the ideologies of the Christian religion. In this case, it is arguable that these individuals are governed by their internal constraints. It is therefore difficult to have them believe in one. Common identity requires that other people identify with the needs and demands of other persons. According to liberals, this is not possible as people will always have their needs triumph over other people’s needs (Swift 164). This is because they have their own citizenship identity that is not common with other citizens. This leads to identity conflicts among these citizens, as either of the concerned persons seem to give more priority to their own citizenship. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is one that believes that multiculturalism has undermined the success of Britons. As seen in the work of Andreou, lots of children are actually ashamed of the country’s past as a result of multiculturalism (1). It is this verity that has led to the party designing a manifesto that c on limiting immigration and promoting one culture. Despite the numerous negative talks on this move by the Ukip party, the party leaders argue that multiculturalism is the major cause of economic collapse of the country (Andreou 1). Worse still, the party manifesto insists that any immigrant must be subjected to health checks, just in case they may have any form of communicable infections (Andreou 1). From the work, it is evident that the Britons are not happy with the fact that immigrants came to their country. The author notes that regardless of their interest in the country, or their origins, the Britons were not willing to welcome them at any cost (Andreou 1). The UK Independence Party (UKIP) does not appreciate Islamification in its territory. The country is specific that it cannot have one identity with the Muslims (Andreou 1). In this case, the country’s governance notes clearly that the Muslim visitors were welcome in their country so long as they did not come to spread their religion. In the event that they wanted to spread their religion the government says that they are not welcome. More specifically, the government indicates that they are on the move to spread Judeo-Christianity to their younger generations and tat Islamification would not be appreciated (Andreou 1). This explains the reason behind the assumption of the existence of the Sharia law by the police forces. The Muslim mode of dressing has also been banned to mean that the government is ardent on the ban of Islam. The government argues that just like one would not go into a banking hall with a motor cycle helmet, the same case one would not put on a hijab (Andreou 1). Ukip is wary that the Muslim numbers are increasing at a high rate, and it may be tricky to resist them at one point (Andreou 1). From the policies adopted by the Ukip party, it is justified to argue that having a common identity is completely unachievable. Their argument is in line with the liberals who say that individuals may have common aspects that bring them together. However, their self interest seems more important than those of other people. In the case of Britain, they do not appreciate any immigrant in their country as they argue that these immigrants are the cause of all their misfortunes. The party’s manifesto is clear on the issue of immigrants. The existing immigrants will, therefore, not share in the interests of the Britons who will visualise that their culture and identity is more superior as opposed to that of the immigrants. 2.2. Euroscepticism case study Eurosceptism opposes the move by the European Union (EU) to define policies that focus on supra-nationality. As seen in the work of Davidson, the concept of European integration has reached its political peak (32). It is evident that lots of people retain their English national identity as opposed to the British identity. This explains why Euroscepitiscm focuses its attention on the growing numbers of the English identity aspects. Despite the citizens of British identity citizens being the major supporter of the movement, QUOTE argues that EU requires a collective identity to achieve a common identity (Davidson 32). The citizens inclined on the English are indeed discontented with the movement. In this case in point, it is clear that the British citizens have a great problem as they will acquire recognition, but what of the English? This is a clear explanation that there is a huge disparity between these two groups. It is therefore difficult to attain unity of the two groups. The movement is then weak and will not ensure that a common identity is achieved. The issue of Scotland also comes to question. As seen in the work of Davidson, the contribution of EU to the Scots is questionable (32). It is this truth that has led to the Scots questioning the benefit of them joining the union. The Scotland question as seen in the work relates to issue of devolution. It is indicated that Scotland acquires more than its share of public spending (Davidson 42). Scottish MPs on the other hand, no longer vote for the laws that are passed by the union. This simply means that the UK administration is no longer given the mandate to represent England as Scotland feels misrepresented. Such members have led to a stronger opinion of the Englishmen to withdraw from the European Union. A closer analysis of the situation clearly explains an identity issue. It is therefore warranted to argue that achieving a common identity is a complicated issue. Additionally, the major political parties have been accused of not putting more emphasis on the politics of English politics and the concept of nationhood. (Davidson 34). This explains why Ukip has been voted the best party to represent the interests of the Englishmen (Andreou 1). If the Englishmen are resentful of the EU policies, considering that the English identity is on the rise, this means that achieving a common identity is extremely tasking. Unless the discontentment of the Englishmen is handled with utmost importance, then common identity will be completely unachievable. 3.0. Multiculturalism, Euroscepticism and liberal philosophy In the opinion of liberal philosophers, members of the same political community term themselves as free and equal citizens (Swift 48). This means that individuals will use their citizen identity to protect themselves from other people’s personal interests. The Britons in the argument of the Ukip party are persons with the same interests politically. They however, do not appreciate the aspects that define the private lives of other individuals such as gender, religion, hobbies or profession. Their role as British citizens, in this instance takes over, as opposed to the demands of other identities. This is to mean that liberal philosophers do not recognise common and shared identities. The same is very practical in the argument of the Ukip party. There is no way that the immigrants would share in the political identity of the Britons. This is because they have their own religion, beliefs and culture that define their identities. It is at this point that one would validate the fact that a universal common identity is not workable and practical using the case study of the Ukip party and its manifesto. In relation Euroscepticism, the English feel left out and completely misrepresented by the EU. In this case, how possible is it that a common identity will be achieved? It is palpable that all citizens focus on fulfilling their citizenry identity; thus, will not jeopardise their contentment to the other opposing party that aims at fulfilling their personal interests as Swift argued in his work on Political Philosophy. Unless the EU comes up with an extremely convincing argument on European’s integration, the hope of integration has reached a liberal consent. The EU needs to do more for its members, what will convince other members to go for the conception of European identification. 4.0. Strengths and weaknesses of Universal Common Identity UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Euroscepticism case studies Having a common identity will be vital for the unification of Europe. It is evident that some members may be interested in getting an upper hand in the EU, but a compromise on the self interests will lead to a victorious union as the new members will be welcomed to a union that appreciates the identity of the other members. Through team work, the union, trade is expected to thrive, as contracts will be made between the existing members of the union. Through a common identity, UK will gain politically and financially as the ties within the union will be strengthened. As the Ukip party notes, the UK and other member states of EU are non members (Andreou 1). This challenges the concept of nation hood, what has led to misery among the member states. In the event that EU passes democratic and legal processes, the member states will gain a common ground for the European leaders to have talks that will boost the economy of the country’s involved. As the Ukip leaders would argue European’s integration would only be possible if a debit union and passing of the making of Eurobonds (Andreou 1). Despite the disparities in geographical locations of the member states, they have the potential to outdo their individual interests for the triumph of the union. On the other hand common identity would also have a share of its weaknesses. It is obvious that some members would want to be termed more superior over others. The result would be leadership wrangles in the new identity uncovers. Without peace, stability of the union will also not be possible, as some members will opt to preserve their personal interest as Swift argues in his work (161). Liberals say that a community with common identity will only succeed if the members make some sacrifices that involve jeopardizing their self interests (Swift 160). The union would then borrow this from the liberal’s argument if it has to be successful. 5.0. Conclusion Conclusively, the issue of a common identity is a controversial one. From the above arguments various parties have varying arguments regarding the issue. In the case of Ukip, the issue of multiculturalism is the major challenge towards the success of the country. It is this variety that led to the creation of a manifesto that bars immigrants from not only visiting but also taking over the country. On the side of Euroscepitiscm, a lot needs to be done. The movement has to devise a manner in which it will treat its members fairly so as they feel part of the EU. Despite the fact that there has been varying arguments on the EU, it is warranted to question if the union is the best way to go. Additionally, it is also justified to question what mechanisms the union has put in place to deal with the challenges that may face it later. Is the union also ready to be resilient in its quest to fight for unity? If so, how would we measure its commitment levels? These questions lead to a discussion of whether a common identity is realizable. With improvements in the union, there will be fewer criticisms from Ukip as well as strengthening of the chances for European integration. I however, believe that a common identity can be achieved if persons appreciate all the aspects that make a people, not their background and culture alone. All humans are the same and should have the chance to reach their potential in whichever places. Works Cited Andreou, Alex. “Is Ukip a party of bigots? Lets look at the evidence.” New Statesman, 11 February, 2013. Davidson, Anna.”Through Thick and Thin: ‘European Identification’ for a Justified and Legitimate European Union.” Journal of Contemporary European Research, 4.1 (2008): 32-47. Swift, Adam. Political Philosophy. London: Polity, 2013. Print. Read More