What do you understand by the concept of 'mainstreaming'? How useful is this as a tool for combating racial discrimination?
What do you understand by the concept of ‘mainstreaming’? How useful is this as a tool for combating racial discrimination?
Issues surrounding ethnic minorities have been at the forefront of British politics as long as parliamentary democracy, whilst racist attitudes towards ‘aliens’, ‘foreigners’ and ‘strangers’ have ensued for just as long. Yet, whilst racism is no recent development, the approaches taken by the state to deal with it have significantly changed in the last half-century. The marked difference is, whilst previous efforts to deal with non-white immigrants were primarily concerned with reducing the numbers of ‘ethnic’ incomers and to a lesser extent integrate them into society and indeed a sense of ‘Britishness’ [Seaford ponders on the way “successive Conservative governments from 1979 to 1997… reified the ‘British way of life’ as a national treasure to be defended from ‘enemies within’” ], political developments have rightly made it popular to recognise certain differences in minority groups. More specifically, acknowledging societal and economic inequalities suffered by first generation immigrants and ancestors of previous immigrants alike have meant the Establishment is much more understanding and accommodating over issues such as education, housing, and welfare needs to name but a few. This has become known as mainstreaming, for this implies the similar aim of gradual integration yet departs from previous thinking in that society must accept and change to a certain extent round minority interests, rather than the opposite.
As definitions go, the Equal Opportunities Commission provide the ‘official’ political meaning, in that mainstreaming equates to “the integration of equal opportunities principles, strategies and practices into the every day work of Government and other public bodies from the outset, involving 'every day' policy actors in addition to equality specialists”. To speak more practically, the consequences of adopting such practice leads to [referring to the mainstreaming of women, but equally applicable to racial minorities] “assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels”. Ultimately, it concerns “making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated”.3 Again, replacing gender with race illustrates what is hoped for, but what is important to note is the goal to reduce and end inequalities that prevent and constrain those at the bottom from succeeding. Helen Seaford asserts that “an inclusive and democratic society” should function in an open, fair and just manner, “so that everyone has a stake in the decisions which affect them”. Furthermore, she poses the question “What makes people feel that it is their country? Partly having equal civil and political rights, partly being able to join in the national culture and share aspirations for the future, but also a feeling that their own personal story and that of their family is entwined with the national story”. Obviously, these can only be achieved by surpassing certain problems that prevent the full implementation of mainstreaming. Seaford, for instance, takes a critical view of the structure of primary education curriculae, in that it “reveals an essentially Anglo-centric view of the British nation” by concentrating solely on Britain in historical studies with little reference to the important role of the overseas empire in shaping Britain’s history, thus preventing ethnic minorities to feel a “common ownership of the nation”. Commenting on the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, she states that this must change, for “The central idea in the Commission’s report is that we should develop as a community and of communities”. The Commission also asserts that mainstreaming policies must “reconcile conflicting values peacefully, respecting diversity and building social cohesion” and offers a “proposal for a procedure to resolve differences of values…by resort[ing] to the Human Rights Act”, however, the question of whether the Act will provide stability and continuity remains contentious. For example, the Act so far has enabled girls to wear Islamic veils at school, yet the issue of permitting polygamous marriages has been rejected.7 Meanwhile, conflict between minority rights and universal human rights appear to glimmer on the horizon. For example, how to provide fair treatment of workers in spite of religious holidays remains in the balance.
