To Live in British Countryside - Essay Example

To Live in British Countryside Who to live where is a hardly contested argument that keeps resurfacing virtually in almost all communities here and there. This context of the British scenario is no exception; confirmed by all the evidences presented. To understand this debated issue, we must base our arguments and understanding on fundamental concepts upon which a community or society is conceived. Most important of these is the idea if identity (Mian, 1). Social identity as a whole can be used to provide the blue print where a society exists. Questions arising are like; who are we? ; What do we have in common? Just to mention but a few. In the case study described in the article given, almost every ethnic community constituting the minorities ask themselves this same question; especially when presented by the fact that they inhabit the countryside. For instance, an account is given of an Asian elder, who also happen to be a writer, and what she commends the earlier visit paid to a park but at the same time shows doubt of weather a similar visit as such may recur. The reason behind her argument is inadequate since it talks about the weather. I feel this is just but a scapegoat owing to the relatively shorter period of time that probably their stay there was (Mian, 1). In general, social identities are based on factors like age, experiences, the position or place where people live and situations provided by the environment (Stephanie, 167-168). Living in the countryside is a point each one should consider, and must not be binding to anyone. This is a fact that one of the inhabitants of countryside; Wilfred- Jones, says is the naked truth about what actually exists. He stands a good ground to point out this owing to his experiences and the fact that he is also a cultural minority. He says that this perception of who is to live in the countryside is just but the perception driven by some forces who have vested interested in the lasting grave consequences of the idea (Mian, 2). From the existing facts, it is eminent that some forms of social identities are misconstrued, for instance, when the picture of urban and rural divides in is created. This is a falsification since the two entities are so broad to be compared as two distinct entities. To prove this, an account of the urban can be given alongside that of the rural. Somewhat, at first, one may perceive the urban as having a distinct life such as violence. The same may happen to the case of the rural which may be seen as very peaceful. Contrary to such expectations however, the former or the latter may be the exact opposite of the other (Steve, 222-230). It should therefore be understand that perception about the countryside; just as put by Wilfred is factual. The fact that Emmanuel-Jones lives amongst the countryside dwellers is reason enough to clarify the multiplicity approach that may be harbored by social identification. He says that his first moments there didn’t make him relent in his intention. This enabled him to prove the point that the ethical minorities can co-exist with the rest of the ethnicities. What he tries to explain can be understood from the idea of valuation of identities in a negative way. It is yielded by the natural phenomenon of imbalance. In a society, not everyone is the same; some are poor while the rest are rich. This ridge establishes a class system which in effect is a social identity in itself. This disorderliness that exists in the society also can be used to understand the debate. The countryside dwellers live in harmony with Emmanuel-Jones, despite the fact that he is from a cultural minority (Stephanie, 175-184). Emmanuel-Jones consequentially rebukes the cultural minorities for also living in the incarceration bred in perception about the interaction. He says, to live in the countryside is an individual decision and no major attempts can yield any remarkable outcome other than that which will be from the individual will power. Everything according to him is based on an individual’s school of thought. He invites fellow black minorities who are from the urban to his place in the countryside. He makes them understand that individual perception and decision is critical for the co-existence. The end product is that his school of thought perfectly scores. This means that for one also to be socialized in a given way and conform to a specific identity, it is adequately enough as simply telling someone what they are. This can vastly change in the way an individual behaves and lives with others. So the question of who we are can be much dependent also on what others perceive of you. Basing on their way of categorization so can you be transformed (Stephanie, 172-174). The place where someone lives also does not emanate from the past life of the individual. Residence as a physical phenomenon may be a regard on the visible rather than the psychodynamic influences. The big question however is, doesn’t the experience also amount to attraction to a given place? This is a concern big enough to ponder in several aspects. Residential identity therefore accrues from the environmental position that is shared by the people there. They may be from different ethnicities and diverse backgrounds but because they share similar experiences, they get bonded so quickly. So is ethnic difference really a factor to consider in establishing who is to live in the countryside of Britain? (Stephanie, 185-190). Two theories can also be used to reinforce this argument of residential claim. The first is the theory of linguistic. This argues that a given group of people can identify themselves basing on their linguistic; which is basically cultural background. However this is not the sole establishment of grouping as can be learnt from the second theory. This is the theory of other than the aforementioned, which also ascertains grouping as entails position, thus “identity project”. This is based on the individual as earlier mentioned; just what one chooses to think about their identity. Finally, it must also be understood that the misconception by individual views as to a segregating countryside are not true in themselves. The article points out key officials in charge of an agency that should spearhead for multiplicity, as being on the frontline shattering it. For example, when the commission chairman for racial equality; Trevor Philips, gives remarks on the “perceived” owners of the countryside. He says that it solely belonged to the middle age and the middle class ethnicity of the white people. To him, allowing other minority groups there wouldn’t just add up (Mian, 1). This shows how key and top ranking officials can reproduce such a manipulative idea. It is so since they stand in the best position to stem it out, owing to the myriad of resources and capacity at their disposal. They are doing just the direct opposite of the basis upon which such agencies are instituted. Historically, in all ethnic backgrounds, rural life is a symbol of identity. Most people, if not everyone, associate it with enriching attributes. It should therefore be a great wonder when the same societal setting is associated with alienation, if indeed this is where we first learn about harmony of a society (Steve, 222-227). In summary, who to live and not to live in the countryside of England is just but a perceptual concern. This addresses the question whether places are a place of inclusion or exclusion for specific communities. It should be understood therefore that places must not be as binding as restrictions. When the focus is established about the countryside, many misconceptions are formalized which if critically treated may surprisingly amount to nothing. We must therefore treat each place as welcoming as home or as hostile as jungle depending on the perception of an individual. Work cited Mian, Ridge. "A question of Ethics." The Spectator 21 January 2006: 1-2. Stephanie, Taylor. (2009) Narratives of Identity and Place. London: Routledge. Steve, Hinchliffe.(2005) Connecting People and Places. London: Routledge. Read More