To what extent is Britain a multicultural society?

Identity, Difference and Inequality SLSP1100

Student I.D. – 200194793

Essay 8. –To what extent is Britain a multicultural society?

Muliticulturalism is defined as the existence of different minority groups maintaining their identities. The way of expressing the growing cultural diversity of Western societies is to talk the language of ‘multi-culturism’ – neatly dividing up societies into homogenous traditions of communities. However this approach has serious limitations, not least because it shares many of the assumptions of new racism about fixed, immutable differences between ethnicities.

“Culture is conceived along ethnically absolute lines, not as something intrinsically fluid, changing and unstable, and dynamic, but as a fixed property of social groups rather than a relational field in which they encounter one another and live out social, historical relationships.” (Gilroy, 1993, pp.24)

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. Previous efforts to deal with non-white immigrants were primarily concerned with reducing the numbers of ‘ethnic’ minorities entering the country and to a lesser extent integrate them into society and indeed a sense of ‘Britishness’. For example, Back (2002) 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’”. (Back, 2002, pp.445) However recent 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.

Seaford (2001) 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”. (Seaford, 2001 pp.107) 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.” (Seaford, 2001 pp.107)

Obviously, these can only be achieved by surpassing certain problems that prevent the full implementation of mainstreaming.

Many people would argue that Britain is not only clearly a multicultural society, but also a multiethnic and multifaith society, to display this they point to a number of factors clearly displayed in British culture. The change in British landscape – Religious symbols such as temples, mosques, synagogues are apparent all over Britain and promote a “multifaith” society. This idea of a multifaith society is also apparent in the acceptance and allowances made for religious clothing, such as turbans and headscarves, to be allowed in the workplace, schools and other public places.

The development of food outlets, including Chinese and Indian restaurants and the ‘obvious’ acceptance of different cultures due to Britain’s favourite dish being Chicken Tikka Masala, is another factor of British culture which could be used to argue that Britain is a multicultural society.

This is a preview of the whole essay

British popular culture including films and music also help to promote multiculturism. Films such as “Bend it like Beckham” and “Bride and Prejudice” which are dominated by actors from ethnic minorities, often hit the big screens and are very popular in cinemas, which helps to promote ethnic identity and educate people about different ethnic cultures. Another form of British popular culture, which helps to promote multiculturism, is music. The introduction of black music from the Caribbean in the 1970’s, such as the music of Bob Marley began to introduce British people to music from different cultures. This continued throughout the 1980’s with British black people beginning to introduce themselves into the popular music scene, creating a new type of popular music, which still had the basic elements of their cultural influence behind it. Furthermore, the development of music such as the bhangra infusion of sounds – Punjabi songs added to a ‘western beat’, displayed by famous artists such as Cornershop, Asian Kool and Punjabi MC, helped bring the culture and music of ethnic minority groups into the West. Many of the tracks were recorded especially for English music channels such as The Box and MTV, and keeping the ‘western beat’ made it even more appealing to young British people, while still introducing them to and educating them about different cultures.

Most importantly though, is probably the role of TV to show the change in the last 40years and the development of multiculturism. In the 1960s and 70s programmes such as “love thy neighbour” and “mind your own language”, ridiculed and mocked the cultures of ethnic minorities, which can be established simply from the titles of the programmes. However more recently programmes such as “Goodness Gracious Me”, “The Kumars” and “The Real McCoy”, produced by Asian dominated casts, has reserved this mockery and turned the jokes on a head, having a go at English for being racist, whilst showing that they really are just like ‘the rest of us’ even though they may have a stronger culture than most ‘white British’ people, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

In short it is claimed that people in Britain are now allowed to attain their ethnicity and religion and are allowed to talk / eat / live where and what they want, which ultimately promotes multiculturalism.

However, many other people claim that these developments over the last 40years have not promoted multiculturism but have infact increased segregation. They claim that since the 1960’s people from ethnic minorities have been ‘clumped together’, for example in Bradford and Birmingham, where there is a very large Asian community. This forced segregation and ‘clumping together’ of ethnic minorities is in itself not only a form or racism but also stimulation for it.

This idea of segregation was also very big issue surrounding the 1991 census where people had seven pre-coded categories to choose from when declaring their ethnicity; Black Caribbean, Black African, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Chinese and White. This very clearly segregated the different ethnic groups and labelled them as ‘different’. However improvements were made in the 2001 census where people had the option of choosing;

White – British, Irish or Any other White background.
Mixed – White and Black Caribbean, White and Black African, White and Asian or Any other mixed background.
Asian or Asian British – Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Any other Asian background
Black or Black British – Caribbean, African or Any other Black background
Chinese or other ethnic group – Chinese or Any other.

Some people would argue that this in turn promotes multiculturism, because it gives people the option of being “Asian British” or “Black British” meaning that they are ‘officially’ accepted as being British even though they, or their ancestors, may have been born in, for example, India or Africa. However others argue that it is still very much segregating groups by the colour of their skin, or the country their distant ancestors were born – a place that they might not even associate themselves with.

After Riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, it was claimed that infact the ethnic minorities, especially Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (who were the most segregated groups), were ‘self-segregating’ and in fact wanted to be separate from the rest of society and have their own separate communities without ‘white people’ trying to destroy their culture. Official reports on riots such as Ouseley, Cantle and Denham in 2001 stated that segregation was a long-term cause of disorder.

People began to argue that the issue of racism is no longer about race it was far more about mixing between the races, and it is this which is preventing Britain from developing into the multicultural society it is trying to become. They suggested that different ethnicity’s exist in Britain with people ‘dipping’ into each other’s cultures when they find an aspect they like. Segregation is seen as the major obstacle and greater interaction is required between the different ethnic groups.

There are many other reasons why people argue that Britain is not a multicultural society. Seaford, for instance, takes a critical view of the structure of the primary education curriculum, 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.” (Seaford, 2001 pp108.) 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.” (Seaford, 2001 pp110).

The Human Rights Act so far has enabled girls to wear Islamic veils at school, yet the issue of permitting polygamous marriages has been rejected. 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.

It seems that Labour under Blair has taken a more positive response to multiculturalism and cultural diversity compared to their Conservative predecessors. Part of this is the fallout from the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, in which the police, amongst other public bodies, was deemed “institutionally racist”(archive.official-documents.co.uk); this has had the effect of forcing issues of racism very much into the public sphere. This is highlighted by examples from Britain’s signing of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) in which the EU formally pledged to fight “racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism” ) to the adoption of the Human Rights Act (1998), fervently abhorred by the Conservatives for enabling legal protection over fair and just treatment of ethnic minorities.

What is clear is that the practicalities of mainstreaming race have experienced definite obstacles and limits. It seems that, whilst popular to soundbite, in rhetoric the merit of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity, the actual measures in tackling certain inequalities appear either to be halfway-efforts or to not have reached political circles. In comparison to gender, racial mainstreaming is yet to be fully accepted by all as necessary in today’s politics. For instance, whilst all-female shortlists for general elections, particularly popular between the top two parties, have been put into place on occasion to increase the number of women MPs, we have seen no proposals to do the same with ethnic minority candidates. This is to contradict, or certainly in the least not to follow, the findings of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain which “suggests that to catch up, 15 per cent of all appointments to the second chamber should be of Asian and black peers.” (Seaford, 2001, pp.111)

Regarding welfare needs, it is undeniable that these are very different to that of non-ethnic minorities. For example, “among African-Caribbean’s children are twice as likely to be in lone-parent families, and Caribbean mothers’ rates of labour-market participation are the highest of all” but despite this the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain’s Report “makes no recommendations as to how childcare, the operation of the child support system or the plethora of new initiatives could be attuned to meet their needs.” (Seaford, 2001, pp.111) Meanwhile we are told that;

“Pakistani and Bangladeshi families suffer a higher incidence of poverty than any other group in Britain (including pensioners) and 88 per cent of those below half average earnings are in large families (with four or more children)” (Seaford, 2001, pp.111)

Yet government plans to increase total spending across the ‘board’ ignores the real problems at hand. Helen Seaford puts faith on the French model, in which “child benefit and income support rates for the fourth and subsequent children should be at higher rates”. (Seaford, 2001, pp.112) This targeted approach could focus resources where they are needed and do far more to alleviate poverty than across-the-board rise in child benefit.

With regard to housing, Seaford again criticises the way government has been and continues to deal with racial inequalities. For instance;

“central government capital finance allocations are given on a per household basis rather than according to household numbers. As a result, locals authorities and housing associations are more likely to spend upon building homes for less people, consequently indirectly discriminating against larger families, common amongst Irish, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities”. (Seaford, 2001, pp.112)

In conclusion, I believe that to some extents Britain has achieved its aim of becoming a multicultural society, through the introduction of new laws and regulations the role of educating people through popular culture, developments in British landscape etc. However I also believe that these developments can explain the segregation of different ethnic groups, whilst Britain is doing its best to ‘include’ people from different cultures, it is ultimately labelling them as ‘different’. The issues of health, education, employment and housing are also very important when considering whether or not Britain is a multicultural society and from the evidence I have looked at I can say that ethnic minorities are still facing disadvantages which ‘white british’ people don’t. Therefore It would be unfair to say that Britain is not a totally multicultural society, although that’s not to say it never will be.

Bibliography

Back, L (2002) New Labour’s White Heart: Politics, Multiculturism and the Return of Assimilation

Political Quarterly, Volume 73 (4) pp.445-454

Gilroy, P (1993) Small acts: thoughts on the politics of black cultures London: Serpent’s Tail

Parekh, B (2000) The Parekh Report: The future of multi-ethnic Britain

London: Profile

Rai, S.M (2003) Mainstreaming gender, democratizing the State? : National machineries for the advancement of women Manchester: Manchester University Press

Seaford, H (2001) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: An Opportunity Missed

Political Quarterly, Volume 72 (1) pp.107-113

Solomos, J (2003) Race and Racism in Britain (3rd edition) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Greater London Authority Race Equality Scheme

(accessed 09.11.05)