Is Britain Becoming Too Diverse - Research Paper Example

Is Britain becoming too diverse? Outline: I. Introduction II. Concept of diversity (General, Politics & Ideology) III. Diversity in relation to Britain The whole concept Britain since 1950’s (Political Evidence Embedded) Britain Diversity in 2004 and thereon Solidarity and Diversity Other key aspects of diversity (Liberal Societies, financing Non-citizens) Negative sides of Diversity IV. Ethnicity The glue of ethnicity Minority Ethnic Groups in Britain (how it has changed?): visibility of ethnic difference V. Race Racism Racism in Britain Black inhabitants and Britain Black and Asian minorities VI. New immigrants and the emergence of super-diversity(graphs) VII. Multi Cultural Britain – Land of Immigrants VIII. Conclusion IX. Work Cited. Introduction The greater cause of concern in Britain these days has been the ever increasing diversity. This can be sense from the range of ways through which people might experience a unique group of identity; this includes gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age. Any countries’ ethnic and racial differences are very much significant for its political position. Considering these variations this paper has been written to focus on the diversity that exists in British society and how Britain is approaching the phase of too much diversity. The ever increasing number of people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds and countries was among most significant a change occurring in Britain from 1950’s to until now, as it stands today claiming the title of the world in one city. When describing London in his work Mayor Ken Livingstone says that London is as if ‘one sees the world being gathered in just one city, living harmoniously, setting example for all’ (in Freedland 2005). This ‘world in one city’ concept was also the special section title in The Guardian newspaper notifying ‘the most cosmopolitan place the earth has’ where ‘Never had there been so many different kinds of people trying to live together in the same place before’ (The Benedictus and Godwin 2005: 2). This ‘world in one city’ was even the title of Greater London Authority’s analysis in 2001 Census (GLA 2005a) Concept of diversity General The condition of being or having composed of different sets of elements: that is variety; especially: the inclusion of various types of people (as of people of different cultures or races) in organization or group programs that intend to promote diversity in several schools. It can even be defined as an instance of being composed of different sets of qualities or elements: a moment of being diverse (diversity in opinion). Diversity (politics) If we look at in the political arena, we may find that the term diversity (or the word diverse) is used to primarily describe political entities (student bodies, neighborhoods, etc) with several members having identifiable differences in their lifestyles or backgrounds. The term covers differences in age, gender, religion, racial or ethnic classifications, philosophy, socioeconomic background, genetic attributes, behavior, intelligence, mental health, physical health, sexual orientation, physical abilities, , gender identity, attractiveness, or other identifying features. For measuring human diversity, one may makes use of a diversity index that measures the probability of any two residents, randomly chosen, would have different ethnicities. If all the residents are from the same ethnic group then the diversity is zero. If half of the residents are from one group and half are from another it's then 50. (Diversity Index) Ideology Political creeds that support the idea that diversity is desirable and valuable hold that promoting and recognizing these diverse cultures may help communication among people of different lifestyles and backgrounds, resulting in greater understanding, knowledge, and peaceful coexistence. For instance, "Respect for Diversity" is one of those six principles from Global Greens Charter, a a public declaration of intentions subscribed to by Green parties worldwide. In contrast to diversity, some of the political creeds promote the cultural assimilation as a way to lead to these ends. Diversity in relation to Britain The whole Concept Diversity if seen in Britain today is not what it used to be earlier. Some thirty years of government policies public perceptions and social service practices have been framed by specific understanding of multicultural diversity and immigration. That is, Britain's ethnic minority population and immigrant have traditionally been characterized by large, well-organized African Caribbean and South Asian communities with citizens belonging originally from formerly colonial territories or Commonwealth countries. Public understanding and policy frameworks indeed, many areas of social sciences - have not yet caught up with the recent emerging demographic and social patterns. Britain can now even be characterized by the term 'super-diversity,’ this is a notion that intends to underline a sort of complexity crossing over anything the country has so previously experienced. Such a condition may be distinguished by sort of dynamic interplay of constituents among an increased number of small, new and scattered, multiple origin, socioeconomically differentiated, transnational connected and legally stratified immigrants who have arrived over the last decades Britain since 1950’s (In light of the Article of David Goodhart ‘Too diverse’) A country over layered by region and class since 1950’s, much too diversified for its size is nothing but Britain. Earlier the country with its overlying cities, towns, villages and suburbs was not diversified to an extent that it had difficulty predicting changes in pupil’s attitudes, behavior, and values living in the nearby neighborhoods. However, this is no longer true in many parts of Britain. The country been a great time ceased the Orwell’s family recognition (although this was with the wrong members in charge). To some this might be the cause of disorientation and regret, a change that they associate with the growing incivility of current urban life. Many others however, felt the change as the fragrance of welcome, modern and inevitable modernity. After three centuries of homogenization through industrialization, urbanization, nation-building and war, the British could be seen as freer and more varied. Fifty years of wealth, peace and mobility have given way for even greater diversity in values and lifestyles. To this we see that diversity has been added value with advance source of ethnic diversity through bigger waves of immigration. This covers mainly the commonwealth immigrants from Asia and West Indies in 1950s to 1960s, followed by many asylums driven European, African and Middle Eastern immigrants in the late 1990s. The individualism, diversity and mobility that characterize developed economies especially in the era of globalization, guarantees more life spending among the strangers. Since the time period of beginning of Agriculture that happened almost 10,000 years ago, humans today have to deal with people that usually cover beyond their kinship. The difference sensed in the developed countries like Britain that we are not just living with strangers but sharing with them. This covers sharing public services, sharing public spaces in towns and cities, sharing parts of the income in the welfare state, being squashed together on trains, buses, and tubes and sharing the democratic conversation though filtered by the media and also the collective choices that are to be made. All the acts of sharing are more generously and smoothly negotiated if one adheres to the principle of limited set of common assumptions and values. However, then as Britain start becoming more diverse the common culture gets eroded. But there lies one of the central dilemmas in political life in developed societies, solidarity along with sharing all the above mentioned stuff would conflict with diversity. This is a sharp confusion for those who want both solidarity and social cohesion, generous welfare given out of the progressive tax system and diversity. Diversity can be defined as the equal respect for wider range of values, ways of life and people. The dilemma between the above two mention values is the notice that serious politics is about tradeoffs. It could even be said that the recent diversity has come at the expense of some of the greater values. Political Evidence Embedded David Willets, one of the conservative politicians draw attention to the political dilemma. Speaking at a welfare reform he pointed out the basis on which large sums of money can be extracted. This would cover use of tax systems to collect funds to help those individuals who are facing difficulties which anyone could face in such similar conditions. If values get more diversified, lifestyles get more differentiated, and then it would be difficult to maintain the legitimacy of eternal risk pooler welfare state. It is important that if progressives want diversity they must be ready to bear part of the moral consensus on which the welfare state rests. This is how the progressive dilemma actually works. Britain Diversity in 2004 and thereon Is this a call for a problem? Surely Britain in 2004 became too diverse and also complex to give expressions to common cultures in present, let alone be the past. Diversity in this background is usually the code for ethnic difference. Nevertheless that is only a single part of the diversity story, although the easiest to most emotionally charged and quantify. The progressive dilemma also revealed the generational rifts and values that emerged with force in the 1960s. At the aforementioned Prospect roundtable, Patricia Hewitt, now the trade secretary recalled an instant of generational conflict. She was canvassing on the council estate when one of the elderly white couple saw her Labor rosette and one of them announced, “We’re not voting Labor then you hand taxpayers’ money to our daughter.” She was an apparent resident on a nearby estate; three children which were all by different fathers moreover her parents had cut her off. (This was the Evidence of close genetic ties not always producing solidarity.) Solidarity and diversity The logic of solidarity with the tendencies to draw boundaries and the logic of diversities with their tendency to cross boundaries do at times pull the both ends apart Thanks to the eruptive norms and identities specifically the class and the nation the recent increase of immigrants has brought such times in to sight. The modernized idea of citizenship goes some way to accommodate these tensions between diversity and solidarity. Citizenship cannot be said as an ethnic, soil and blood concept but rather a more political idea, implying equal legal, social and political rights and duties for inhabitants in a given national space. But citizenship is something we are born with it blossoms out of a it arises out of a shared experiences, shared history, and, shared suffering; as the American writer Alan Wolfe says “Behind every citizen we see a graveyard.” Other key aspects of diversity (Liberal Societies, financing Non-citizens) Modern Liberal Societies Modern liberal societies cannot be based on just group identity, the very concept of rule of law of equal treatment for all regardless of one’s religion, gender, wealth or ethnicity conflicts with it. Financing Non-Citizens A purely private charitable decision is one where the extent of our obligation to those whom we are not connected through citizenship or kinship. But it will also cause policy implications. For instance, significant NHS resources are expended on foreign visitors each year especially in London. Though, many of us could agree in theory that the needs of the outsider parties are greater than our own. But still one would not like the idea of their children or parents receiving inferior treatment because of consumption of resources that way and also by non-citizens. Is it possible that one reconciles these observations of increasingly fluid diversities? Our liberal democracies still work fairly well, thanks to the modernity people have learnt to be tolerant and capable of sharing with others. Until 20th century today’s Britain position would have been seen completely different. Preference of “Own kind” Evolutionary and Social psychology bluntly argues in favor of most of us preferring our own kind. Such category of own kind or in group will alert the readers. So it would be worth stressing the meaning. Own kind does not mean that we are hostile to other kinds or cannot empathize with outsiders that is hate it or being aversive to them. So this just shows that Britain’s in-group would be certainly too diverse. In complex societies, many of us belong simultaneously to various in-groups profession, class, hobby, family, locality, and nation and an ability to move easily between the groups is a sign of maturity. Negative sides of Diversity Greater diversity can result real conflicts of interests and values, nevertheless it also contributes to unjustified fears. Exposure to wider spread of such lifestyles, moreover more mobility and therefore better education, has helped to contain some of those fears – a trend reinforced by the expansion of higher education and popular culture (graduates are more tolerant than non-graduates). There is less overt sexism or racism or homophobia (and more scenes of racial intermarriage) in Britain than there were 30 years ago and discrimination on the basis of race is one of the highly politically sensitive types of unfairness. But 31 % of the people still admit to being racially biased. Researchers like Isaac Marks at London’s Institute of Psychiatry alert that it may not be possible to neatly segregate the population between smaller groups of xenophobes and the rest. The feelings of hostility and suspicion towards outsiders are latent in almost all of us. Ethnicity The glue of ethnicity In the rhetoric world of the modern liberal state which is the glue of ethnicity (“people who talk and look like us”) has been far replaced with the glue of values (“people who behave and think like us”). Nevertheless, British values grow, in parts, out of a specific history and even of a specific geography. Too rapid a change in this makeup of a community not only alters the present, it also, potentially, alters our link with the past. As Bob Row thorn wrote (Prospect, February 2003), we might lose a sense of accountability for our own history – the shameful things and good things in it – if several citizens no longer identify themselves with it. Minority Ethnic Groups in Britain (how it has changed?): The following result has been in accordance to the Case-Bookings Census Briefs No. 2 that brief out the distribution of Britain's focused minority ethnic groups, and how that has changed, both across the Britain as a whole and also in the four largest conurbations. • The Great Britain can be seen as still a predominantly white society, with around 92% of its population being the white majority in 2001. However, this picture currently can be seen to be changing, with a rapidly increase in diversity of ethnic groups and cultures. According to Census data, Britain's population has grown by 4% in the 1990s and around 73% of this growth was due to the minority ethnic groups, which grew by around 1.6 million people against 600,000 in the white population. The fastest growing group was the 'Black African’; they were more than doubling during the decade. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese groups also saw rapid growth. • The minority ethnic populations have grown virtually in every local authority area, including those with those who were very few minorities at the start of the decade along with those minority ethnic communities who were already established. This is what is consistent with the pattern of dispersions that was evident in the 1980s. • Considering the percentage of their starting point, such increases were greatest in areas where there were smaller minority ethnic populations in 1991. But, the greatest numerical increases were those in areas where there were already sizeable minority ethnic populations; this covers mainly the inner urban areas. This was consistent with the pattern of natural population growth and the continuing immigration to join the established family members. • So this population growth took place alongside of continual counter urbanization and the regional economic decline. While minority ethnic populations in inner urban areas continued to grow, white populations in many of such areas continued to decline. Therefore, minority ethnic groups became a greater share of the population of few urban neighborhoods in 2001 than they were in 1991. • Such twin patterns of dispersal and concentration presented both challenges and opportunity for the development of an increasingly multi-cultural Britain society. Visibility of ethnic difference The visibility of ethnic difference could only mean that it often overshadows other types of diversity. Changes occurring in the ethnic composition of any city or neighborhood can come to stop for wider changes of modern life. Few of the expressions of racism, especially as those by old people, can be read as the declarations of dismay at passing the older ways of life. The appearance of many different immigrants shows an outward reminder to the fact that they are, at least at the starting - strangers. If welfare system states that all should pay into a common fund from which all can draw in times of need, it is vital that most people make the similar effort to be self supporting and are just not taking advantage from the system. We need to be assured that strangers, one of those from other countries, have similar idea of reciprocity as British do. Absorbing outsiders into ones community takes worthy of time. Negotiating the tension that rests between solidarity and diversity is one thing that remains the heart of politics. But both solidarity and diversity have, for different reasons, downplayed the problem. The solidarity is reluctant to acknowledge the conflict between values that it cherish; it is ready to pressurize the erosion of society from “bad” types of diversity such as the market individualism but not from “good” types of diversity such as gender freedom and the immigration. And the diversity, in Britain at least, has side stepped the conflict. Racism Racism is great belief that races have certain distinctive cultural characteristics which is determined by hereditary factors and which endows some races with intrinsic superiority; this belief might involve abuse and aggressive behavior towards the members of another race. Racism in Britain “Racism in Britain” can be taken as racism towards the people who are living outside as well as those who are inside Britain, and, secondly, the foreign settlers who are regarded as “The Enemy Within” (P. Gilroy, 1992), interlinking the outside with that of inside, the general with that of specific. Immigrants in Britain Racism might take on several specific forms which might depend on the type along with the state of society, and essential factors which the organization of society along with its dynamic cultural and political processes (S. Hall, 1978). After this Great World War. II Britain had to face a significant demographic crisis; this was reason f its population was aging along with its dependency ratios which remained high, along with for several decades, in form of net outward migration. The entry in to the Britain of immigrants meant that in 1983 it could have been estimated that almost 1 million people born in the United Kingdom were of West Indian or the Asian descent, excluding the 1.3 million born abroad. Mr. H. Richmond (1988) describes this situation forcefully.  “Despite the level of immigration, Britain remained firm in its policies along with insider outlook. The immigrants coming from ‘New Commonwealth were not welcomed, and they could not adjust in to the multicultural society. Moreover, Britain was reluctant to allow those who by race or cultural could not fit the image of the traditional ‘white Anglo Saxon’ population. Among those who were permitted to settle faced widespread discrimination and prejudice. Institutional and personal racism continued, even toward the subsequent generations born In Britain through immigrants parents or grandparents”.  One of the thinkers, P. Fitzpatrick, looked the Race Relations Act of 1976 in particular and at law in general and finalized that the racism seemed “symbiotic with liberal Capitalism in The Great Britain”: “…There were certain consistent limits; absolute bounds beyond that law could not proceed in countering racism. What, in an instant sense, stood on the others side of those bounds checked the law’s advance autonomy of employers and was the power? Black Inhabitants in Britain Black violations of law are often termed as cultural attributes and are used for supplying proof that the Blacks inhabitants are incompatible with Britain. The solution suggested by one thinker is making the national “community along with its law the incarnation of rational universal ordering. Those which are of ‘different culture’ are not, but, excluded from superior reasons”. Having a constitution where everyone can refer, hence seems to be a really good idea (in fact some of the people have argued that one of the vital reasons there is opposition to Britain constitution is that it would just mean giving rights to non-white).  A. H. Richmond suggests that the racial situation is made worse during times of change, when there was insecurity. If one alongside considers the disturbances in Los Angles year 1992 the theory that some people propound, that social changes occurring in the US appear about eight years after in Britain, it may be that the worst has not yet come. These conflicts just reflect a sort of combination of the influence of history, and also of ethnic and class factors, which are further exacerbated by the recent economic crisis and government fiscal policies.   The Black and Asian immigrants and their so called descendants are growing up in Britain these are relatively segregated by regional differences and concentrated in inner city neighborhoods. They are also overrepresented in the manual occupations, as well as among those who are unemployed.   The unskilled service personnel and laborers are proportionally over represented, however they are not majority among the many immigrant population, or the coming second generation. Black and Asian minorities A. Savanna wrote in his book on race and culture under RAT and the degradation of the black struggle the demand for Black Sections in the Labor Party, the local government being anti-racism, and the move to a one European market. Such things act as a critical reaffirmation of the socialist politics as the background for questions of race and resistance against it. What all the Black and Asian minorities have in common is “persistent exposure to the racial prejudice and discrimination that pervades the British society”, that cannot be further clarified merely in terms of competition for housing, working or other resources however is embedded in the institutional system of western and internalized in their personalities of those who just wish to live and work inside and through such institutions” (A. H. Richmond). Measures taken to resolve those problems need not to be rectifying the root cause of the problem. New immigrants and the emergence of super-diversity Over the past so many years immigration – and consequently the real nature of diversity – in the UK has dramatically changed. Since the early 1990s there has been marked raise in net immigration and also diversification of countries of origin. To absorb the change in the quick view watch the figures carefully below. Few graphs to represent this change (Working Paper # 25): Figure 1 Immigration to / from United Kingdom 1966-2004 Figure 2 Total international migration to UK by country of birth,1993-2002 Source: Salt 2004, Working Paper No 25 Table 1 Foreign nationals living in the UK, largest twenty-five groups, 2004 Rank Nationality Number in UK Per cent 1 Ireland 368000 12.9 2 India 171000 6.0 3 USA 133000 4.7 4 Italy 121000 4.2 5 Germany 96000 3.4 6 France 95000 3.3 7 South Africa 92000 3.2 8 Pakistan 86000 3.0 9 Portugal 83000 2.9 10 Australia 80000 2.8 11 Zimbabwe 73000 2.5 12 Bangladesh 69000 2.4 13 Somalia 60000 2.1 14 Former Yugoslavia 54000 1.9 15 Philippines 52000 1.8 16 Turkey 51000 1.8 17 Netherlands 48000 1.7 18 Poland 48000 1.7 19 Jamaica 45000 1.6 20 Former USSR 44000 1.5 21 Nigeria 43000 1.5 22 Spain 40000 1.4 23 Greece 37000 1.3 24 Canada 37000 1.3 25 Iran 36000 1.3 All foreign nationals 2,857,000 100 Table 2 Number of People living in London by Country of Birth outside the UK, largest twenty-five groups, 2001 Rank Country of Birth Number 1 India 172,162 2 Republic of Ireland 157,285 3 Bangladesh 84,565 4 Jamaica 80,319 5 Nigeria 68,907 6 Pakistan 66,658 7 Kenya 66,311 8 Sri Lanka 49,932 9 Ghana 46,513 10 Cyprus 45,888 11 South Africa 45,506 12 U.S.A. 44,622 13 Australia 41,488 14 Germany 39,818 15 Turkey 39,128 16 Italy 38,694 17 France 38,130 18 Somalia 33,831 19 Uganda 32,082 20 New Zealand 27,494 21 Hong Kong 23,328 22 Spain 22,473 23 Poland 22,224 24 Portugal 21,720 25 Iran 20,398 Source: GLA 2005a Multi Cultural Britain – Land of Immigrants Timeline: Immigration – since last 200 years 19th Century • Jewish arrivals • Irish settlers • Trade bringing Indian and Chinese to main ports 1930s • Refugees from the Nazi oppression 1948 • The boat Windrush brings 492 Jamaicans to the UK • Immigration from Caribbean after post-war Britain 1950s and 60s • Settlers from new Commonwealth nations arrive –Pakistan, India and Bangladesh 1970s • East African Asians along with Vietnamese arrive 1980s • African community • Refugees arrive from Eastern Europe Conclusion It can therefore be concluded that Britain is really becoming too diverse. Though since beginning Britain has faced diversity, but the super- diversity that it faces now needs to be handled carefully through fresh and novel ways to respond and understand such complex matters that depends on Race and Ethnicity. There is a need to go beyond the existing theoretical framework in order to benefit from such diversity (Fong and Shibuya 2005). Work Cited 1. A. Sivanna, 1982 ‘RAT and the degradation of black struggle’ in Race and Class, Vol. XXIV # 2, Institute of Race Relations, Autumn, 1982 edition (January 1, 1982) 2. A.H Richmond, 1988 in Immigration and Ethnic conflict , Palgrave Macmillan (March 1988) 3. D. Good hart, Too diverse, Prospect, February 2004 (Collected responses to above, Prospect Website, 2004 4. Fong Shubuya 2005 ‘Multiethnic cities in North America’ in Annual Review of Sociology vol. 31, pp. 285-304 5. Freedland Jonathon 2005 ‘The world in one city’ in The Guardian UK News, 15 July 6. GLA [Greater London Authority] 2005a London – The World in a City: An analysis of the 2001 Census results, London: Greater London Authority Data Management and Analysis Group Briefing 2005/6 7. Mapping L. A Ranking Diversity in Los Angeles Times, Local News 10. P. Gilroy. 1990, ' The cultural Politics of ‘Race’ and Racism’ One Nation under a Groove in Britain in (ed.) 11. Ruth Lupton and Anne Power. 2004 Case-Bookings Census Briefs No. 2 : Minority Ethnic Groups in Britain, 2011, 12. S. Hall.1978, ‘Racism and moral panics’ in Post-war Britain, 1978 13. Steven Vertovec 2006 ‘The Emergence of Super-Diversity in Britain’ in Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper No. 25, University of Oxford, 2006 Read More