Articles

Goodbye to multiculturalism, but welcome to what?

Email this to a friend Print Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit

by Nick Pearce, director
Parliamentary Brief - 01 December 2005

Until recently multiculturalism was a byword for mutual respect, equal rights and the celebration of diversity. It was the accepted common sense of the political mainstream and the liberal media. Now it is under sustained attack as politicians of the right, academic gurus of the radical left and the assorted ranks of the commentariat compete to administer the last rites to its corpus of beliefs.

The climate of ideas began to shift against multiculturalism in 2001. The turning point was not 9/11, but the whole constellation of events that made that year such a toxic one for the self understanding of British society: the riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley; a sharp increase in asylum claims, accompanied by daily images of young men scaling the fences of the Eurotunnel freight yards; and then the globe-shattering attacks on the twin towers themselves.

As Labour’s second term progressed public fear of terrorist attacks, heightened anxiety about immigration, and the looming war on Iraq combined to form a lethal cocktail too powerful for the apparent certainties of multiculturalism to withstand. July 7 simply delivered the coup de grace.

But what does multiculturalism actually mean? The very looseness of its definition in popular discourse has made it an easy target. It is a classic floating signifier, attached to different sets of ideological baggage by its critics and defenders.

For the right it is a politically correct assault on British nationhood and cultural history, a vessel for the dangerous platitudes of limp-wristed lefties and human rights lawyers. For the radical left it is an abdication of egalitarian truths, a fatal compromise with pre-Enlightenment obscurantism and a diversion from solid class politics.

If these portrayals are caricatures, what then is multiculturalism? Its leading theoretical exponent, the Labour peer Bhikhu Parekh, argues that it is neither a political doctrine nor a philosophical worldview imbued with a concept of the good life to offer its adherents. Rather it is a perspective on human life, which stresses that human beings are culturally embedded, whilst at the same time recognising that cultural forms are multi-dimensional, interactive and dynamic.

Understood in these terms, multiculturalism is a plea for sensitivity. It asks us to recognise others’ legitimate claims to cultural identity and to value differences. It seeks to cultivate our knowledge of other cultures and to nurture feelings of belonging between different communities. It insists on facilitating genuine equality of citizenship with a political ‘community of communities’.

On one level, then, multiculturalism is simply a description of practices which are common to many progressive democracies: race equality strategies, public recognition of cultural diversity, and sensitivity, within the framework of public law, to religious beliefs. All of these should be defended. But the recent challenges to multiculturalism raise at least three further questions. First, do we need to do more to integrate different communities around a core of common citizenship?

Second, can we better tackle community segregation and the social exclusion of minority groups? Third, should we more forcefully insist on basic human rights and democratic norms against some of the claims of different cultures? The answer to all these questions is yes.

In recent years the United Kingdom has undergone a quiet revolution in its citizenship policies. Citizenship education is now part of the school curriculum. New applicants for citizenship have to demonstrate a basic mastery of the English language and knowledge of British history and civic life. Local authorities now hold ceremonies for those granted citizenship — public affirmations of access to the British community that have become popular occasions. Thousands of people now gain citizenship at the local town hall rather than when a brown envelope falls through the letter box.

These citizenship laws and practices have given greater content to the objective of promoting civic integration. They are familiar to many other Anglo-Saxon democracies, not least those that proudly describe themselves as multicultural.

Societies that have been constituted on the basis of mass migration, like the USA, Canada and Australia, have long understood the need for civic integration. But they do not believe that inculcation of a common core of political citizenship is antithetical to the recognition of diverse beliefs and cultural identities.

Integration with diversity is not the same as assimilation to a monoculture. The difficulty arises when the integrative power of political citizenship is weak. Is it possible that we can share a language, democratic rules and habits of mind, and yet still live in segregated and culturally distinct communities?

The experience of the 20th century would suggest that second and third generation migrants become steadily more integrated than their parents without the need for cultural assimilation. But in the context of rapid and continuous migration those integrative processes can weaken. Moreover, as recent experience in the UK shows; younger generations can experience disorientating conflict between the customs and beliefs of their parents and those of the society around them. At an extreme they may search for meaning in political discourses that reject both Western liberalism and the moderate religious conformism of their parents.

These are tough questions for which we have few easy answers (and if anybody thinks the French are better at integration, just remember the nationwide wave of nightly riots that so alarmed their political establishment just last month). An inclusive, open sense of national identity is important — feelings of patriotic belonging are not the preserve of conservatives. Economic inclusion is also critical and the UK labour market is relatively good at absorbing migrants.

Where the jobs market and local economies are weak, as is the case in former textile towns, the problems of segregation are much more profound. We need a harder, more sustained look at how to spread economic prosperity and social justice to these areas.

Britain’s ethnic composition has also undergone a radical pluralisation over the last decade. Whilst official statistics still record the trajectories of Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and other established ethnic minorities, the reality on the ground is far more diverse — indeed, in some parts of the country, it is hyperdiverse. Britain is now home to a host of new immigrant communities from right across the world: from South Africa to Somalia, Australia to Afghanistan.

Many are prosperous and well integrated, particularly those working in the UK’s international sectors like banking, and key public services such as the NHS. But others have catastrophic levels of disadvantage, particularly those from war-torn backgrounds, such as Somalia, Ethiopia and the former Yugoslavia.

Levels of unemployment and economic inactivity in these communities are appallingly high. Unless urgent action is taken across a range of fronts, these communities will be cut adrift from mainstream society for decades to come. The final challenge is where to draw the line on basic liberal rights and cultural practices. Outlawing forced marriages and female circumcision is straightforward. But other cases, such as the wearing of the jilbab in schools, are less clear cut.

In my view, public authorities have a duty to understand the depth of motivation that religious belief brings to individual lives. What the Germanphilosopher Jurgen Habermas calls the evolution of a ‘post-secular’ society is a means of capturing this on-going dialogue between secular public consciousness and private belief. But this sensitivity should not prevent forceful confrontation with irrational or oppressive beliefs. Children are denied their rights when they receive wholly inadequate education in private religious schools. Muslim women have equal rights to live free and fulfilling lives, and should be supported in the assertion of those rights.

So while recent events have reminded us of the importance of tackling political indifference to segregation, asserting liberal values and the need to inculcate a common core of political citizenship, multiculturalism is far from dead. It is evolving a different life course. And it is through this process of negotiation and debate that we can renew our democracy with greater strength in our diversity.