Multicultural Policies and Social Segregation - Term Paper Example

Multicultural Policies and Social Segregation of the of the of Introduction According to Temko et al (2007:35), multiculturalism is a form of theory. It refers to racial, cultural and ethnic diversity in a population of a certain place. The population been referred to is organised into a group like in a town or school. Some governments have entrenched official policies that deal with the issue of multiculturalism in the country (Phillips, 2005: 67). The policies recognise certain groups in that society. They are allowed to celebrate and maintain their cultures and cultural identity (McGhee, 2008:25). The aim here is to enhance social cohesion in that society. The policy proposes that all the ethnic groups should be treated equally. No one group is taken to be superior to the other. The government does not force people to adhere to one universal religion or culture. Many people support multiculturalism. This is especially so in the academic circles and in the media (Malik, 2008:89). It receives a lot of support from those countries that are culturally diverse, with a lot of different cultural groups making up the society, as opposed to one cultural group. But this theory has its share of opponents. It is especially opposed by those people who adhere to a particular set of norms of one culture. In Europe and the United States of America, this phenomenon of multiculturalism can be traced back to the last years of the nineteenth century (Barry, 2001:56). It started as a form of philosophical, pragmatist ideology. Then, as the nineteenth century came to an end and the twentieth century began, it metamorphosised into something entirely new. It became part of the political and cultural pluralism in these countries (Barry, 2001:67). Around this time, the European and Western countries were colonising Africa and as such, had to recognise the cultural diversity of these countries. There were a lot of migratory activities in to Europe and America which meant that these countries had a diverse society as far as cultural groups are concerned. The sociologists and historians of the time came up with a form of cultural pluralism that gave rise to multiculturalism (Harker, 2006:45). This paper will try to look at multiculturalism as far as social segregation is concerned. This is because multicultural policies have been accused of segregating the society into different and separate cultural groups and these acts as a hindrance to social cohesion. Multiculturalism Policies Promotes Social Cohesion These policies might include the recognition of multiple citizenship. The administration might also promote media houses that operate in a minority language (Harker, 2006:23). Members of these groups have holidays set aside for the celebration of their culture. Some schools in America allow Muslim girls to go to school dressed in the traditional Islamic attire for the woman. The country might also go as far as having members of different ethnic groups governing themselves with their own set of laws. This is for example the Islamic Sharia laws. All these policies are opposed to assimilation (Phillips, 2005: 23). This is the process whereby members of a minority ethnic group are absorbed over time into the culture of a well established and dominant cultural group (Temko, 2007:89). They shed many of their distinct cultural traits and adopt those of the dominant group. The end result of this is a unified society. These approaches are adopted by different countries. For example in Europe, France is an assimilative society while Britain is multiculturalist. America is also a largely assimilative country. That is why it has acquired the label of a cultural melting pot. Assimilation has been accused of assuming a breach of human rights approach (Temko et al, 2007:26). This may include slavery, imperialism and colonialism, amongst others. The Africans went through this process of forced assimilation during the colonisation era (Temko et al, 2007:27). They were forced by the colonialists to abandon their way of life and adopt that of the Western Culture. This was inhuman. But one advantage of multiculturalism is to be found in its approach. Proponents say that it creates unity in differences (Phillips, 2005: 56). Even though a country might be composed of different cultures, there are some values that are common to all. These are like patriotism and loyalty to the country and a wish for harmonious and orderly co-existence. These values are the ones that bring them together. This is because human beings, though from different cultures, have common traits and values. For example, every person, regardless of his culture, likes to live peacefully and to be respected. This is perhaps the reason why Tony Blair supported a Multicultural Britain. On sixth of December of the year 2006, the then British premier read a speech that was supportive of this idea. He said that a balance can be obtained between integration and diversity (Temko et al, 2007: 56). This is a more humane approach. But as much as they share common traits, it is impractical to bring them under one umbrella of a common culture (Temko et al, 2007:67). This is because they also share some significant differences that should not be ignored. They have common values, but they also have differing values like faith and religion. Some believe in Allah, others in Buddha and others in Christ. There is no way to recognise that one culture, like religion, is superior to another. This will be arbitrary and wrong. One cannot claim that Allah is superior or inferior to Christ. Multiculturalism is more tolerant than assimilation (McGhee, 2008:43). This is because it respects the individual rights and wishes of a person. It also respects diverse cultural and ethnic beliefs. The culture of the Muslim community is respected in Britain. They have mosques and they observe their Muslim holidays. And what a better way to build a cohesive society than through respect of personal wishes and tolerance? A society should respect the right of an individual. These are rights like that of worship and freedom of expression. But there cannot be respect to the personal right if the right of the group is abused (McGhee, 2008:45). For example, France, an assimilative society, experiences a lot of violence and demonstration from the so-called minority groups. Assimilation assumes a discriminative approach towards the minority group. They feel that their culture has been ignored for another one because the latter is superior to theirs. If the Muslims are forced to convert into Christianity to be accepted in the society, they will feel that their religion, Islam, is regarded as been inferior. This is no way to build a cohesive society. Multiculturalism has several aims at its heart. One is to build a society that is in harmony and cohesive (Phillips, 2005:12). This is what Britain wishes to achieve. It is a country that should ideally exist in peace with the diverse communities that make it. A society that has adopted multiculturalism successfully should have strength and integration. Though this rarely happens, as seen in Britain, it is what every multicultural society strives to be. This was the slogan that Britain used in their bid to host the 2012 Olympics in London. They said that they were a culturally diverse and multicultural society. This interaction between diverse cultures leads to people learning important things from one another. They learn from these differences. The white Americans learn something from the culture of the blacks, and vice versa. The white Americans learn how to do a rap song from the blacks while the blacks learn entrepreneurial skills from the whites. The people in that society also possess a wider perspective of the world. They can see the world from the eyes of their compatriots. The Britons learn how the Muslims view the world and the reality presented there in. There is also another reason why a multicultural society should ideally be more cohesive than an assimilative one. Every person is supposed to treat the other with a measure of respect which is mutual (Malik, 2008:56). Every culture should appreciate the other. Conflicting groups can also be separated through multiculturalism (Malik, 2008:57). Friction is avoided between groups that are in competition. This has been practiced with a measure of success in Britain. The minorities occupy their so-called neighbourhoods, or ghettoes, and this is allowed. For example, there are neighbourhoods that are exclusively for the people of the African origin. The tension is reduced since every group feels that it is respected and may end up occupying its own territory. All of the above instances point to the fact that multiculturalism can be used to achieve social cohesion. These are reasons that prove that these policies should be adopted by a country that has people of diverse culture and wishes to maintain cohesion. But this model has also been accused of social segregation. The next section of this paper will look at the reasons why this model leads to social segregation and why assimilation is more preferable. Multiculturalism Policies Promote Social Segregation The theory of multiculturalism has come under criticism for various reasons. The critics advocate for assimilation policies as opposed to multiculturalism. They have their reasons for opposing this kind of policies as a mean to attain a cohesive society in a diverse cultural environment. One of the critics is Trevor Phillips (Harker, 2006:45). It is important to note that this person was a proponent of multiculturalism in Britain. But he now opposes it as a source of social segregation. The critics say that assimilation is the best mean for promoting social cohesion. This is because according to them, multiculturalism policies only lead to a segregated society. Trevor, in a speech presented on September of 2005 said that “Britain is sleepwalking towards segregation” (Harker, 2007: 36). He claimed that there could be “racial ghettos similar to the U.S” (Harker, 2007: 36). This is a society where the different cultural groups are separated and act as distinct social elements. Assimilation requires that the country adopt one form of cultural practice and conduct. There should be uniformity across the country. This is what France tries to do, though its success is questionable. It has witnessed alienation of the young Muslims who live in the ghettoes of Paris. These are the youths that engaged the police in running battles as they demonstrated in the streets of Paris in 2005. They were citing alienation by the administration. There are no cultural celebrations for the minority groups. Rather, there are only national holidays that are observed by every citizen. There is one religion and laws that are to be observed by every person regardless of their tribe and ethnic background. France has the same religion that is to be followed by every citizen and national holidays for everybody. Its religion is primarily Catholicism (Harker, 2007: 37). There are no exclusive neighbourhoods for the minorities, unlike in Britain. According to them, multiculturalism plays at the differences of the various groups (Barry, 2001: 23). As a result, these differences are highlighted. For example the differences between the Muslims and whites in Britain are highlighted. This has the effect of heightening the occurrence of hate crime in the society. A society can not be united if a certain cultural or ethnic group is always waging wars on the others, like what happens in Britain. One cannot fail to remember the cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper. They ridiculed prophet Mohamed. This was a source of friction between the Muslims and the other dominant community. Trevor ridiculed freedom of a community freely expressing itself, like what the Danish were doing, by saying that “freedom of speech allowed people to offend each other” (Temko et al, 2007:39). The minorities should be assimilated into the dominant and native group. This will make the two groups be united. Failure to do this will lead to resentment of the natives or dominant group (Temko et al, 2007:89). This is bound to bring hate crime from the dominants accusing the minority of the ills that will befall their society. For example, Muslims are said to abet terrorism in Britain. In a society that is multicultural, there are bound to be some cultures who will feel to be more superior to others. The whites feel superior to the minorities in Europe. This is because every person is sensitive of his or her cultural background (McGhee, 2008:78). As a result of this, some groups will claim to be victimised by the others. This will fuel animosity and violence at worst. Some groups will feel that the government treats them lowly than the others. Some are favoured. For example in America, Muslims claim that they are treated as lesser citizens than the Jews. Young men of African extraction are said to be victimised by the police. Of the more than two million people behind bars in America, two thirds are likely to be young black males (McGhee, 2008: 45). This can not lead to a cohesive society, rather, a segregated one. Also, this society is prone to class conflicts (Phillips, 2005: 46). This is because there is class sensitivity in a multicultural society. This leads to the feelings of us vs. them. Though, this is not a preserve of assimilative societies, as Britain also has class conflicts. Law enforcement agencies cannot act decisively in dealing with crime for fear of been accused of racism (Temko, 2007: 45). This is because some groups will feel that they are been unfairly targeted by the police. This happened in London after the 7/7 bombings. Police were accused of harassing Muslims. This is against the tolerant principles of a multicultural society like Britain. This will lead the Britons to hate the Muslims even more for they accuse them of terrorism. This is not an ingredient for a socially cohesive society. A multicultural nation has different rules for the so-called minority groups. This endangers the universality of certain rights (Malik, 2008:12). This leads to confusion in the legal sector of the country. This is of no help when it comes to the maintenance of law. This is because some laws and rights of a certain group may encroach on the rights of the other groups. The problem is compounded by the fact that a person from a different set of laws cannot be prosecuted under another system’s laws. A Muslim in a multicultural society with Sharia laws cannot be tried under the laws of the land. Conclusion The proponents of multicultural theory points to its cohesive abilities. But this is not always true. As we have seen above, this approach can achieve the exact opposite. The groups are opposed to each other. The country is divided along tribal and ethnic lines, like the case given above of Britain society. There is an existence of many laws as to confuse the best of the legal experts. All of this does not really lead to the espoused cohesive society. Rather, it segregates the society into distinct social classes. But it still has some advantages. It brings people of different cultures under one system while at the same time retaining their different and specific cultures and values. This is a very humanitarian approach as there is respect for personal rights. In fact, Trevor Phillips apologised for the scathing attack he made to multiculturalism one year later (Harker, 2007: 37). This was due to lack of evidence to support his claims. He had cited the research done by Dr. Mike Poulsen in UK. He said that “I should apologise to Mike for mangling his work a little in a speech I made last September” (Harker, 2007: 37). On the other hand, assimilation has been seen by some people as been the best vehicle to attain social cohesion. The people act on the same values and beliefs. This is good for social cohesion. But there are some evidence that assimilative societies like France are plagued with violence and demonstrations. Others like the American one, the so-called melting pot, is a well known violent society. It has two million of its citizens behind bars. But the opponents of multiculturalism are not deterred by this evidence. They say that the violence in France and in America might not be caused by assimilation. Rather, the societies are prone to violence just like any other society and assimilation has nothing to do with it (Temko et al, 2007: 98). The two approaches should not be totally accused as been successful or a failure. This is because every country has its own different circumstances that will encourage either assimilation or multiculturalism. Thus, every approach is successful to some extent in one society than in another society. Reference Barry, B. 2001. Culture and equality. Cambridge. Polity Press. Harker, J. 2006. Forcing rules will not lead to a cohesive society. London. The Guardian. Malik, K. 2008. Strange fruit? Both sides are wrong in the race debate. Oxford. Oneworld Press. McGhee, D. 2008. End of multiculturalism. London. Open University Press. Phillips, T. 2005. Sleepwalking to segregation. London. Open Press University. Temko, N. et al. 2007. The experience of being British. Cambridge. Polity Press. BBC News Wednesday, 30 August 2006, 15:56 GMT 16:56 UK UK race chief in ghetto apology Trevor Phillips Trevor Phillips came under fire after last years speech The head of Britains race watchdog has apologised for how he presented an academic report that suggested racial segregation is increasing in the UK. Read More