Multicultural Regulations in the UK - Term Paper Example

Introduction Multiculturalism Multiculturalism is a philosophy that upholds the institutionalization of society with divergent cultures. It is employed with regard to the demographic composition of a place. This is frequently at the institutional level such as schools, corporations, towns or countries. Politically, multiculturalism describes extensive range of ideologies. These ideologies encompass promotion of equivalent respect to divergent cultures in a nation and advocacy of polices supporting the sustenance of cultural variety. Moreover, it promotes strategies in which individuals from divergent tribal and religious affiliations are tackled by administrations as described by the associations they are part of. All these ideologies evade presenting any creed, racial, or cultural societal values as dominant. Multiculturalism is also compared to the precepts of assimilation. There is the principle for multiculturalism and dissimilar countries handle the issue in divergent ways. There are apparently two conflicting theories which have formed through dissimilar administration policies and principles. Firstly, they are those that deal with on relations and interaction between divergent cultures. Secondly, there are those that focus on multiplicity and cultural exclusivity. Cultural segregation can guard the exclusivity of the local traditions of a country and contribute to international cultural miscellany. Additionally, multiculturalism can also be described as a phrase referring to cultural assortment or an affirmative endorsement of societal diversity (Heywood, 2000). There are hypotheses of multiculturalism that questions the principle of upholding dissimilar ethnic customs within a country. Multiculturalism is a contentious issue in many European countries that were initially associated with one, uniform nationwide identity. Moreover, analysts of multiculturalism advocate cultural amalgamation of various ethnic and cultural affiliations to the current legislations and national statutes. Conversely, critics might campaign for assimilation of divergent ethnic and customary associations to a single countrywide identity. This assignment aims at investigating how multiculturalism has fundamentally affected the connotation and practice of egalitarianism in Britain. Britain In the UK, reticent multicultural regulations were endorsed by local governments in the 1970s to 1980s. This was particularly by the Labour administration of Blair and Wilson. Majority of the immigrants at this time were from Ireland, India, the Caribbean and previous British protectorates. In 2004, the number of immigrants who were granted citizenship increased to a 140, 795. This number has significantly escalated since 2000 (Volk, 2004). After WWII, there was remarkable immigration in the UK. This resulted in diversification of the nation both racially and culturally. Therefore, racial interrelation strategies have been enacted to reflect on the standards of multiculturalism. There is no formal, national dedication to the precepts of multiculturalism. This hypothesis has encountered critique on the basis that it has failed to uphold social amalgamation. Many analysts have inquired the dichotomy between assortment and assimilation that this theory assumes. The UK administration has shifted away from strategy associated with multiculturalism since 2001 towards the integration of marginal societies. Antagonism has developed to government endorsed multicultural strategies, with some analysts regarding it a costly letdown. Marginal cultures are permitted to remain unique, but British customs and tradition are at times viewed as restricted and hence adapted. This occurs often without the approval of the local populace (Isaacs, 2007). There have been innumerable responses on multiculturalism in Britain which have polarized in decades. Some individuals view multiculturalism as the concrete of a contemporary, laissez-faire society. Others assert that it has aided in creating an apprehensive, disjointed nation. The intricacy with the above dialogue is that both perspectives baffle the lived knowledge of multiplicity. Conversely, some individuals view multiculturalism as a political procedure. The incident of co-existing in a community changed by considerable immigration, a community that is blinkered, vivacious and sophisticated, is positive. As a political procedure, nonetheless, multiculturalism portrays something extraordinarily diverse. It defines a set of strategies where miscellany is managed by placing individuals into tribal compartments. In addition, it also describes these peoples’ wants and rights with regard to the enclosures in which they are placed. Furthermore, it utilizes these compartments to mould public strategies. Some individuals blame escalated immigration for malfunction of societal guidelines and to twirl minorities into the quandary. Conversely, it has coerced many conventional liberals and fundamentals to abandon orthodox ideologies of freedom such as free dialogue in the name protecting multiplicity (Bhikhu, 2002). David Cameron instigated an overwhelming attack last year. This speech cautioned that multiculturalism in Britain encourages extremist philosophies hence causing domestic terrorism. Cameron endorsed the strategy of muscular liberalism to impose the precepts of equality, legislation and liberty of talking across all facets of community. Cameron held responsible a principle of national multiculturalism which supports dissimilar cultures to practice separate lifestyles. He asserted that this has caused the collapse of some to deal with the terror of some customs such as forced matrimony. He maintained that the nation should confront ideologies such as extremism and foster a sense of communal identity in the country. Cameron affirmed that Britain has been lenient to minorities who conduct themselves in ways that are against British values. He added that there has been too much caution in reprimanding offensive views from foreigners. However, if an indigenous, white individual maintains racist perceptions they are correctly reprimanded. This shows inequality in dealing with such offenses (Burns, 2011). The paradox of multiculturalism as a political procedure is that it demoralizes what is crucial about assortment. Diversity encompasses everything regardless of the chaos and disagreements associated with it. This makes multiplicity valuable, but it also brings suspicions in multiculturalists. They seek to diminish such variances by packaging them in tribal packages and regulating the limitations of those packages in the name of lenience and reverence. Multiculturalism reclines political quandaries in terms of customs and creed. This modifies political variances into a structure that appear as neither functional nor resolvable. For instance, to battle racism, one should acknowledge their identity; civic confirmation of one’s cultural variation, reverence and lenience. Multicultural ideologies have transformed to become a technique of empowering marginalized societies. Nevertheless, these ideologies have empowered societal leaders but not individuals. Multicultural guidelines seem to treat marginalized societies as one disregarding class, creed, sex and other variation. This leaves many individuals in these societies feeling neglected and disenfranchised (Isaacs, 2007). The precept of equality is grounded on integrity and respect. Individuals from all backgrounds usually express their sentiments on whether they are treated justly and with reverence. This is with regard to divergent issues such as health protection, academia, legislation and housing. For instance, the individuals who maintain that they receive inadequate care with regard to one of these services feel that they do not belong to Britain or their neighborhood. Apprehension is often articulated about housing separation, about societies becoming secluded when inhabiting in homes distant from others. Some researchers have depicted the cultural makeup of the locality appears to bring slight disparity to the perception of belonging to Britain. The implication on this view of belonging is more to the locality of an individual than on the entire country. Therefore, housing separation plays a minute function in influencing the feeling of belonging. Furthermore, concern with regard to multiculturalism is tied to the principle that some racial and pious minorities do not consider themselves as British nationals. Fundamentally, all the white natives consider themselves as nationals, as opposed to people from varied ethnic societies. The elaborate for this is that, foreign-born individuals are not prone to report themselves as British. Answers to queries about national personality might also be legalistic, with many persons indicating that they are British just because they possess a British passport (Rajaee, 2000). Conversely, there is one crucial feature in which multiculturalism has not succeeded. While multiculturalism is directed towards making the marginalized affiliations part of the entire community, it disregards the need for attention to white, indigenous people. This results in stealing the natives’ national personality and values. Some fractions of the white populace sense that they are isolated and prejudiced, hence, making them as not part of the British community. Multiculturalism has succeeded in fostering a feeling of belonging among marginalized groups, but the minimal regard to promote regions with white populace (Nagle, 2009). Multiculturalism has significantly impacted on Britain’s practice of fairness in the nation. This is attributed to the fact that the majority of aliens only feel that they belong to the country when they are represented. This entails representation in crucial facets of life like academia, care provision among others. Foreigners base their fairness on these representations. Naturally, this is the standpoint that a country’s natives would also describe fairness, since they feel that they are more entitled than the migrants to get crucial amenities. British Multiculturalism Hypotheses The UK’s multiculturalism has been futile prompting propositions by analysts of revival of assimilationism. There is a novel epoch in post-September 11 opinionated supremacy, financial determinism, structural and intellectual racisms with many European administrations public legislations almost entirely directed at Muslims. In present times, there have been criticisms with regard to multiculturalism with assails all across the political arena. The media, TV, political contenders among others have frequently presented news and commentary on matters encircling immigration, incorporation and quandaries of multicultural nations. The interest given to these contentious subjects has not been restrained to any region of the political field or audiences. Some persons assert that the merits of multicultural strategy foster segregation and exclusivity. In addition, some commentators dispute that the supposition that promotes the right of each culture to subsist is detrimental; since it provides no thread that joins these cultures together. Furthermore, there is the presumption that describes multiculturalism as tantamount to diversity. This hypothesis fosters that; individuals should preserve their own ethnic traditions and gladly co-exist. However, these individuals must uphold a universal strand of ‘Britishness’. This is defined as affirmative acceptance as opposed to unconstructive tolerance. Comprehending multiculturalism is to value that it varies in meaning and translation. Some people view it as the sampling of divergent cultural affiliations, while for others; it is the path to testing structural inequities. Disagreements with regard to multiculturalism and the connotation of equality have growled for many years. One might be tempted to assert that, the present salience of the subjects in Europe, Britain and USA can be connected to the 9/11 occurrence and consequent happenings. For instance, a representation of the impacts of these happenings is the manner the academic accomplishment of Bangladesh nationals has been argued. According to Malik, Bangladeshis were regarded as Asians in the previous years. Presently, these individuals are seen as Muslims due to poor academic upshots (Malik, 2012). In the 20th century, Britain’s differentiation was viewed differently. During this epoch, Britain regarded individuals, mainly expatriates, coming from divergent regions of the globe as people requiring aid. It was a nation whose self-representation aimed at offering refuge for susceptible and hounded individuals. However, the dread of being transformed by the migrants taking the benefit of Britain’s generosity escalated. This has significantly changed over the years. This differentiation is as exemplified by the derogatory media portrayal of expatriates from foreign countries. It is evident that political bodies in Britain view expatriates as an impending security menace. Public dialogue has also shown conventional politicians emerging to have laxity in protecting refuge affiliations and foreigners (Caravantes, 2010). Handling Multiculturalism Multiculturalism is a reality in Britain. However, there are innumerable ways in tackling the subject. Firstly, with openness, it is crucial to understand that though the issue is not new, the happenings of 9/11 have brought about a new perspective to the matter. This is with regard to the demand for calm, yet forceful dialogue on the subject. Secondly, it is vital to recognize the complexity. This is with regard to the fact that incorporation in Britain is not exclusive or otherwise of individuals tagged as Muslims. Acknowledging this would part of a candid debate. This also calls for acknowledging the reality of things. Furthermore, it is necessary to evade easy typecasts. This is pivotal in deciding on legislative initiatives, which could result, in inert or futile action. A palpable example is to converse about ‘Muslims’ as if they consistent, homogenous affiliations to which these symbols could be affixed in all situations. These variances are not constricted to perceptions about the elucidation of Islam, but accept traits for instance socio-economic class, academic accomplishment, housing systems and variances between males and females in institutions. Furthermore, accepting the intricate characteristic of Britain is vital. This encompasses the capability to identify the diversity in individuals and affiliations in the community and how this brings benefits or challenges. As a consequence, there is a necessity to recognize and learn from other nations how to tackle issues such as those concerning migration (Gibney and Hansen, 2005). Conclusion Logically, no tolerant community grounded on liberal standards would try to homogenize subcultures and enforce conformity. Certainly, diversity could fortify Britain from many standpoints. However, this variety is only significant when there is changing social debate. This is when a subculture is extremely involved in a cultural swap with the majority. The present structure of multiculturalism has profoundly failed to bring about such vibrant social discussion. The political bodies together with the marginalized societies have not done adequate work to interpret the differences into unity and social power. There is also a constriction to how far the custom of political accuracy can impede social misunderstandings. Therefore, in order to realize the affirmative potentials of multiplicity, new strategies need to be endorsed to tackle the results of Multiculturalism in Britain. References Bhikhu, P. 2002. Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory. Harvard UP. Burns, J. 2011. Cameron Criticizes Multiculturalism in Britain. A6 New York Edition. Caravantes, E . 2010. From melting pot to witch's cauldron: how multiculturalism failed America. Government Institutes. Gibney, M & Hansen, R. 2005. Immigration and asylum: from 1900 to the present. ABC-CLIO. Heywood, A. 2000. Key concepts in politics. Palgrave Macmillan. Isaacs, A. 2007. Immigration and emigration in historical perspective. Edizioni Plus. Malik, K. 2012. Multiculturalism Undermines Diversity. Guardian News and Media Limited. Nagle, J. 2009. Multiculturalism's double bind: creating inclusivity, cosmopolitanism and difference. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Rajaee, F. 2000. Globalization on trial: the human condition and the information civilization. IDRC. Volk, T. 2004. Music, Education, and Multiculturalism: Foundations and Principles. Oxford University Press. Read More