Is Multiculturalism Good for Britain - Term Paper Example

Is multiculturalism good for Britain? British society has always been multi-cultural due to invasions, migrations and wars over a period of time. Romans, Vikings, Saxon and Norman cultures influenced British culture and in contemporary world Asian, Afro-Caribbean and Chinese are dominating in the multicultural society of Britain. Britain always welcomed and celebrated different cultures by protecting their rights. Multiculturalism is an ideology that has its roots in anti-racism. But afterward, it became more of political nature rather than its initial perspective of mutual respect and understanding of other cultures. It has been hugely appreciated and encouraged for long, however, in today’s scenario of terrorism, especially after 2001 riots and 7 July bombings in Britain, multiculturalism is highly questioned for its reliability and its continuity as policy in future. There are many concerns but most important highlight is the segregation rather than integration of cultures due to multiculturalism. This paper studies the different perspectives about multiculturalism and its background briefly in order to determine whether it is good for Britain or not. For understanding multiculturalism in Britain it is crucial to define multiculturalism in its simple and genuine meaning as Sivanandan (2006) stated: ‘Multiculturalism simply means cultural diversity, and that diversity can either be a good thing, leading to integration, or a bad thing, leading to separatism. It is the socio-economic context and the country’s policies that determine the direction in which multiculturalism develops.’ In order to decide whether Multiculturalism is good or bad for Britain, it is crucial to understand the beginning of multicultural Britain. Despite the classic definition of Roy Jenkins’, ‘Integration is not a flattening process of assimilation but equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance’(cited in Sivanandan 2006) racial discrimination continued to flourish in employment, social services and other areas and mutual tolerance was destabilized by self-interest of politicians who used anti-immigration agenda for getting votes. Cultural diversity is not any of the government’s decree but an expression of unified struggle and a joint fight of people from different communities, faiths, religions and locals. They were Asian, Afro-Caribbean and Whites who achieved unity in diversity which led to the government’s initiative of anti-discrimination legislation in Race Relation Acts of 65, 68 and 76.This was the true understanding of multiculturalism which urged schools to teach their students about the importance of respecting and celebrating each other’s cultures, religions and festivals in 1970s.But after that certain qualitative changes occurred in the dynamics of multiculturalism. It is important to distinguish multiculturalism as an outcome of the struggle against racism and multiculturalism as government policy. As the element of struggle faded it became more of what Sivanandan called ‘culturalism or ethnicism’ as multiculturalism became a competitive fight which moved from streets to town halls and became the fight for votes.All of this moved from struggle against racism to struggle for culture (Sivanandan 2006).Sacks (2007) puts it as, ‘A culture of victimhood sets groups against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of other’(as cited by Associated Press 2007).Kepel (2005) states: ‘Multiculturalism was the result of an implicit consensus between the establishment elite and the workers of the left. The separate development of Muslims allowed the one side to keep an eye on Pakistani immigrant labour and the other to secure their votes through religious leaders at election time. It is this consensus that the July bombings smashed to smithereens.’ Prime Minister Tony Blair said on October 2, 2001, after US terrorist attacks, ‘We celebrate the diversity in our country, we get strength from the cultures and races that go to make up Britain today.’ According to Tariq Modood British multiculturalism is strongly based on commitment for equality and the equality is interpreted as an acceptance for non-assimilation(as cited in The Parekh Report 2000).The ideology of multiculturalism has strong roots and has significant heterogeneity with school children speaking over 300 languages(Ansari 2004). However according to Brearley (n.d.), since 2001, after riots and 7/7 bombings the idea and policy of multiculturalism is frequently questioned and criticised. After 2001 riots up to 40% commentators criticized it. Arun Kundnani, a left-wing anti-racist criticised multiculturalism for being responsible to ethnic radicalism and initiating cultural stagnation. Another criticism from different political perspective is of Trevor Phillips (2004) quoted in The Times, he regarded multiculturalism as outdated and useless and at worse it initiates separateness among communities and malign young Muslim minds. He emphasized the need of asserting ‘a core of Britishness’ in the society (as cited in Brearley, n.d.) According to Kenan Malik (as cited in Brearley, n.d.) 7/7 bombings specially made British Muslims a suspect and benefiter of multiculturalism and British society as fragmented. He argues that it takes us to tribal Britain with no political or moral centre; it has made Britishness to be regarded merely as an acceptance of difference. The Shadow home secretary, David Davis attributed multiculturalism policy as outdated and stated: ‘(abandoning multiculturalism will let) people of different cultures to settle without expecting them to integrate into society...often the authorities have seemed more concerned with encouraging distinctive identities than with promoting common cultural values of nationhood’(BBC 2005). A European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi stresses the dark side of multiculturalism by saying, ‘By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethic group, we are not fighting racism, in fact, we are institutionalising it’ (as cited in Hari 2008).According to Associated Press (2007) British chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks defined multiculturalism as, ‘an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected but he confirms that ‘this movement had run its course’ in his book The Home We build Together: Recreating Society in 2007. Sacks (2007) further ads that the idea of multiculturalism led Britain to segregation instead of any integration and even liberal democracy is threatened by its consequences. It was the politics of freedom which is vanishing into the politics of fear (as cited in Associated Press 2007).According to Sacks: ‘Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment…He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive”’ (as cited Associated Press 2007). In addition Hari (2008) points out that practicing multiculturalism doctrine implies the preservation and promotion of different cultures breeding in Britain and accordingly the demand for different courts, rules and schools seems logical. In this way, Multiculturalism is a mirror image of the same thing for which it appeared as a reaction, i.e. racism. Referring to Sharia courts in some British mosques, rights of Muslim women and others are reconsidered and even questioned to be the same as the rest of the world. It represents a clear example of issues with multiculturalism which urges to adopt cultural differences mindlessly without actually realizing the consequences. It makes sense only when society is benefiting overall as Kepel (2005) considered that multiculturalism is logical, ‘is it leads to a peaceful society, where community leaders keeps their flocks in check and instil in their followers religious and moral values that are conducive to the maintenance of the global public order.’ The idea of multiculturalism is opposed mostly by the people who think that there is only one alternative, i.e. mono-culturalism. However, there is a much better way for state to understand and celebrate human differences, i.e. liberalism. It allows the people from every community and religion to practice what they want without harming anyone else (Hari 2008) Success of multiculturalism is evident from the Mori poll about the attitudes toward race and ethnicity. It ran over the years and results show that only 25% of Brits would prefer living in all White area, the ratio is over 40% in some European countries. It shows that only 12% Whites would mind their relatives marrying people of some other ethnic orientation and 50% won’t mind that. The acceptance is increased in just five years when ratios were 33% minding this and only 22% don’t (as cited in Speech on Multiculturalism 2006). Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lecture ‘Our Nation’s Future’ on 8 December 2006 gave a clear understanding of multicultural Britain in future. He believes that a right balance can be acquired between diversity and integration. Britain loves her diversity but there is need to tackle the differences appearing in the form of alienation and separation from the actual British values which unite diverse communities. There is a just anxiety about the misuse and abuse of British openness towards different cultures. Some people may object that integration or no integration is not the problem but integration is to be understood in its right context. It is not about culture and lifestyle but about values which unite and integrate British people. It is the definition of British as citizen not as people; it binds British into the duties and rights of being citizen of British society. Other ethnicities have full rights to own and practice their faith and celebrate their culture. This is what actual multicultural Britain is about and it is what is legitimate. It bring all the cultures and races together when it comes to shared values, belief in democracy, respect for Britain and her heritage. Britishness doesn’t allow any culture or religion to supersede and when it comes to the integration of United Kingdom, duty as citizen is the most important than anything else. As far as the failure of some part of a particular community is concerned, it does not rule out the benefits of Britain as multiculturist society. It can be attributed to the flawed function of one particular ideology that appeared within religion at some point of time (as cited in Speech on Multiculturalism 2006). According to Mori poll(2005) for BBC,62% of British national population regard multiculturalism as a good thing for Britain which has made it a better place and 58% of people think that immigrants should adopt the traditional British values and culture. Regardless the minute majority, the feeling about multiculturalism is mixed as the survey results further explains 32% of people thinking that ‘it(multiculturalism) threatens the British way of life’ and 54% feel that due to this diverse cultural orientation some parts of Britain are no more the same. On the other hand, among Muslim population, survey results showed 87% favoured betterment in British society because of multiculturalism and only 28% considered adopting the native values. However, both groups disregarded the idea that multicultural policy is a failure and should be discarded. It refers to an overall good perception for multicultural society in Britain. Britain has long reaped the benefits of multiculturalism, now a perfect ideology should not be rooted out if it is maligned by some fraction of people from any particular faith. As Prime Minister Toney Blair rightly pointed out the need to go back to the right ideology of multiculturalism which is ‘not the celebration of division: but of diversity’. It has a particular objective to let people live together in harmony despite the differences. It calls for a peaceful co-existence rather than discord. Multiculturalism to be successful demands a perfect integration of duty to be British with native identities (as cited in Speech on Multiculturalism 2006).For concluding, there is nothing more apt than quoting Prime Minister Tony Blair saying that current situation does not call to discard multiculturalism in Britain. In fact, we should keep celebrating the difference. For harmony and balance we need to work on the current challenge. It can be accomplished by strengthening our duty as nation to integrate and reassure the commonness. It is the high time to consider our responsibilities towards shared boundaries and duties in order to protect our rights for celebrating distinct cultures and faiths (as cited in Speech on Multiculturalism 2006) By considering different perspectives and understating the beauty of multicultural Britain, the paper concludes that multiculturalism is an ideology that is good for Britain. Multiculturalism in its true sense is a highly developed form of human understating and acceptance about society and cultural harmony. After a successful time period, this should be considered just a challenging time for a dynamic cultural idea. Discarding or reconsidering it will lead to the journey of development all over again. Britain has long cherished and strengthened itself from the society of multicultural nature. However, all the British people need to work for it as it is good for everyone in its purest form which calls for mutual respect, peace and understanding of each other’s cultures rather than maligning peace and stability in any form. Work Cited Mori, BBC. 2005. UK majority back multiculturalism. (Mori polls for BBC) [Internet] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4137990.stm [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Hari, J., 2008.Rowan Williams has shown us one thing-why multiculturalism must be abandon. The Independent, [internet] 11 February. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html[Accessed 6 January 2010]. Kepel, G., 2005.Why Multiculturalism Has Failed in Britain. The Independent/Arab News, [internet] 24 August. Available at: http://arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=68965&d=24&m=8&y=2005 [Accessed 7 January 2010]. Associated Press, 2007.Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy. The Jerusalem Post, [internet] 20 October. Available at: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1192380605648&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull [Accessed 8 January 2010]. BBC News, 2005.Davis attacks UK multiculturalism.BBC News, [internet] 3 August. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4740633.stm [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Sivanandan, A. Interviewed by: Institute of Race Relation. Britain’s shame: from the multiculturalism to nativism. (22nd May 2006) 3.00pm Institute of Race Relation. Brearley,M.,n.d.The Anglican Church, Jews and British Multiculturalism.[Online]Available from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:teh8GrZ65fEJ:sicsa.huji.ac.il/ppbrearley.pdf+The+anglican+church,jews+and+british+multiculturalism+by+Margaret+Brearley&hl=en&gl=pk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiRmwRJrV5c1JNn6s-4XpcYZ8P7heXCqNUQMTwArCO9lHA9Y_dO-_WS8x8elQgsqjJRTwshpsQXZmDDo0weJToIDcB8ZlLNkG-1Y7wgQw5hZT6xgVlSfhqAkwdpgwH3t84vgQ9c&sig=AHIEtbTw4_tLL6L2T5io5_XCA1NBESKFSA [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Ansari, H., 2004. The Infidel within: Muslims in Britain since 1800.London:C.Hurst & Co. Ltd. The Parekh Report, 2000. Cf.Tariq Modood, the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report, Commission of Multi-ethnic Britain London: Runnymede Trust Profile Books. Speech on Multiculturalism and integration, 2006. Speech on Multiculturalism and integration (8 Dec 06) [internet] Available at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page10563 [Accessed 6 January 2010]. Read More