Race Conflict and Cultural Change
•Transferir como KEY, PDF•
0 gostou•378 visualizações
This document discusses the history and challenges of multiculturalism in Britain. It describes how multiculturalism was initially seen as a positive way to recognize cultural diversity, but then faced criticism for promoting segregation between cultural groups. Some argue multiculturalism is now in crisis due to societies becoming too diverse, while others call for more integration and community cohesion. Overall, the document examines the complex debate around multiculturalism in Britain over time.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Semelhante a Race Conflict and Cultural Change
Semelhante a Race Conflict and Cultural Change (20)
Último
Último (20)
Race Conflict and Cultural Change
- 1. Race Conflict Change Week 5 Race and Multi Culture
- 2. Overview… • What is multiculturalism? • Sowing segregation? • Multiculturalism in Crisis? • “Integrationism”
- 3. “The melting pot doesn’t melt” Anthias Yuval Davis 1992
- 4. A Salad Bowl of Cultures
- 5. David Goldberg (2004): 2 kinds of Multiculturalism
- 6. David Goldberg (2004): 2 kinds of Multiculturalism Descriptive
- 7. David Goldberg (2004): 2 kinds of Multiculturalism Descriptive Multiculturality
- 8. David Goldberg (2004): 2 kinds of Multiculturalism Descriptive Normative Multiculturality
- 9. David Goldberg (2004): 2 kinds of Multiculturalism Descriptive Normative Multiculturality MC Policy
- 10. Multiculturality: A fact of life The multiple nature of our societies is a fact. London - “You see the world gathered in one city, living in harmony, as an example to all” Ken Livingstone after 7/7
- 11. The problem with multiculturalism “Multiculturalism constructs society as composed of a hegemonic homogeneous majority and small unmeltable minorities” Anthias Yuval Davis, 1992
- 12. The notion of ‘community’
- 13. The notion of ‘community’ • ‘Community’: the whole vs. the part.
- 14. The notion of ‘community’ • ‘Community’: the whole vs. the part. • Community: shorthand for ‘minority’.
- 15. The notion of ‘community’ • ‘Community’: the whole vs. the part. • Community: shorthand for ‘minority’. • For ‘Community relations’ read ‘problems caused by blacks’
- 16. Towards segregation - The rise of the New Right
- 17. Towards segregation - The rise of the New Right • The New Racism of the New Right (Barker 1981).
- 18. Towards segregation - The rise of the New Right • The New Racism of the New Right (Barker 1981). • Culture explains social unrest.
- 19. Liberals the promotion of the cultural mosaic
- 20. Liberals the promotion of the cultural mosaic • Taking ‘blacks’ off the streets.
- 21. Liberals the promotion of the cultural mosaic • Taking ‘blacks’ off the streets. • The professionalisation of community.
- 22. Liberals the promotion of the cultural mosaic • Taking ‘blacks’ off the streets. • The professionalisation of community. • “Steel bands, samosas and saris”
- 23. Different cultures, separate lives?
- 24. Different cultures, separate lives?
- 25. Different cultures, separate lives? • Self-segregation: blaming Muslims(Kundnani
- 26. Different cultures, separate lives? • Self-segregation: blaming Muslims(Kundnani • Factors: De- industrialisation, white flight, separate education & housing.
- 28. A Crisis of Multiculturalism? • Too diverse?
- 29. A Crisis of Multiculturalism? • Too diverse? • A vicious circle: Minority culture still blamed for the problems of multiculturalism.
- 30. “Integrationism”
- 31. “Integrationism” • Community cohesion: Back to the “community”
- 32. “Integrationism” • Community cohesion: Back to the Cantle: we have “created a culture “community” in which each different group feels that it is being unfairly treated.” “we should not “dismiss negative perceptions too lightly as racist.”
- 33. “Integrationism” • Community cohesion: Back to the Cantle: we have “created a culture “community” in which each different group • Culture is still feels that it is being unfairly treated.” everything! “we should not “dismiss negative perceptions too lightly as racist.”
- 34. “Integrationism” • Community cohesion: Back to the Cantle: we have “created a culture “community” in which each different group • Culture is still feels that it is being unfairly treated.” everything! • Integration: a one-way “we should not “dismiss negative street? perceptions too lightly as racist.”
- 35. Sleepwalking to segregation? “Opinion polls would suggest that rather than minorities having a problem with engagement it is the majority White populations that are most isolated and least engaged with communities other than their own.” Finney & Simpson 2009
Notas do Editor
- \n
- \n
- “Multi-culturalism emerged as a result of the realization, originally in the USA, and then in Britain, that the ‘melting-pot’ doesn’t melt, and that ethnic and racial divisions get reproduced from generation to generation.” (Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992: 158). \n
- Also known as a cultural mosaic.\n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- Later, when we come to the critique of MC, we shall see that what is actually being attacked is the fact of multiculturality (e.g. the existence of diverse groups in society) and NOT the policy of multiculturalism because cultural solutions are still being posed to what are in fact problems of systemic or institutional racism. \n
- \n
- The main problem with MC as policy is its tendency towards essentialisation or reificvation of culture as something that is inherent to individuals.\n\nAway from the unity across different ethnic “identities” made impossible by political blackness in the 1960s and 1970s.\n\nThis narrow view leads to various problems:\n
- 1960s: Community means locality especially ‘working class’ areas. \n\nResponse to 1958 riots and influence from US civil rights led to focus on the ‘black community’.\n\nCommunity thus comes to be a shorthand for minority.\n\n2. Based on this reified view of community (always about the other) in the mid-60s a range of governmental commissions were set up to liaise with the ‘communities’: e.g. The Community Relations Committees (CRCs) brought in with 1968 Race Relations Act (CRCs = precursor to the CRE). \n\nCRCs were mainly made up of concerned white citizens who often had quite a patronising attitude towards those in the ‘community’.\n\nThis process created an oppositional relationship between those on the inside and those on the outside of the community and a barrier between the community and participation in wider social, economic, cultural and political life of British society. \n\n3. The CRCs’ remit was to deal with urgent matters of urban development and redressing issues of highly necessary resourcing in underprivileged areas. \n\nBut by focusing on an essentialised view of community, an emphasis was placed on a presumed underlying pathology that blighted these ‘communities’. \n\nThus, local problems came to be seen as linked to the ‘nature’ of the ethnic minority communities.\n\nBy the 1970s, community policing was started but confined to areas with high concentrations of black people such as Hackney, Brixton or Toxteth contributing to the idea that these were problems areas and that thus black communities caused problems for policing (link to week 7).\n
- 1960s: Community means locality especially ‘working class’ areas. \n\nResponse to 1958 riots and influence from US civil rights led to focus on the ‘black community’.\n\nCommunity thus comes to be a shorthand for minority.\n\n2. Based on this reified view of community (always about the other) in the mid-60s a range of governmental commissions were set up to liaise with the ‘communities’: e.g. The Community Relations Committees (CRCs) brought in with 1968 Race Relations Act (CRCs = precursor to the CRE). \n\nCRCs were mainly made up of concerned white citizens who often had quite a patronising attitude towards those in the ‘community’.\n\nThis process created an oppositional relationship between those on the inside and those on the outside of the community and a barrier between the community and participation in wider social, economic, cultural and political life of British society. \n\n3. The CRCs’ remit was to deal with urgent matters of urban development and redressing issues of highly necessary resourcing in underprivileged areas. \n\nBut by focusing on an essentialised view of community, an emphasis was placed on a presumed underlying pathology that blighted these ‘communities’. \n\nThus, local problems came to be seen as linked to the ‘nature’ of the ethnic minority communities.\n\nBy the 1970s, community policing was started but confined to areas with high concentrations of black people such as Hackney, Brixton or Toxteth contributing to the idea that these were problems areas and that thus black communities caused problems for policing (link to week 7).\n
- 1960s: Community means locality especially ‘working class’ areas. \n\nResponse to 1958 riots and influence from US civil rights led to focus on the ‘black community’.\n\nCommunity thus comes to be a shorthand for minority.\n\n2. Based on this reified view of community (always about the other) in the mid-60s a range of governmental commissions were set up to liaise with the ‘communities’: e.g. The Community Relations Committees (CRCs) brought in with 1968 Race Relations Act (CRCs = precursor to the CRE). \n\nCRCs were mainly made up of concerned white citizens who often had quite a patronising attitude towards those in the ‘community’.\n\nThis process created an oppositional relationship between those on the inside and those on the outside of the community and a barrier between the community and participation in wider social, economic, cultural and political life of British society. \n\n3. The CRCs’ remit was to deal with urgent matters of urban development and redressing issues of highly necessary resourcing in underprivileged areas. \n\nBut by focusing on an essentialised view of community, an emphasis was placed on a presumed underlying pathology that blighted these ‘communities’. \n\nThus, local problems came to be seen as linked to the ‘nature’ of the ethnic minority communities.\n\nBy the 1970s, community policing was started but confined to areas with high concentrations of black people such as Hackney, Brixton or Toxteth contributing to the idea that these were problems areas and that thus black communities caused problems for policing (link to week 7).\n
- Intro - By the 1980s, two ideas - the idea of culture as a replacement for race and the idea of community had been framing understandings of what was known as “race relations” since the mid-1960s.\n\nIn the 1980s - 2 parallel developments sow the seeds for the segregation which now is said to define many of Britain’s towns and cities.\n\n1. (Arun Kundnani: Chapter 3: “Seeds of Segregation”)\n\nTHE NEW RIGHT\n\nThe new racism of the new right is based on an acceptance of cultural relativism.\n\nRather than arguing that whites are superior to blacks, the new racism argument proposes that each ‘ethnic’ or ‘cultural’ group is better off in their own environment (this is the argument of the BNP today). \n\nThe logical conclusion of this is that ethnic minority groups should not live in the UK because each group has its own ‘natural homeland’ - it is unnatural for non whites to live here.\n\nWithin the UK situation, the election of Margaret Thatcher and the rise of the New Right marks a complete break with both the unifying force of political blackness (last week) and the laissez faire attitude to minority cultural and religious practice promoted by the Labour government in the 60s and 70s.\n\nThe new right wants to manage culture. Non British (non English) cultures are seen as a threat to the sanctity of Britain as a nation.\n\n2. This cultural focus meant that all social problems could be reduced to a problem of culture.\n\nEspecially after the riots of the 1970s and early 1980s, African-Caribbean men in particular were seen to be suffering from having a weak culture. \n\nThe new right argument was that there was something inherent to this weak culture which led young black makes to violence. \n\nIn other words, racism, poor housing, poor educational opportunities, or even the global economic situation had nothing to do with it. The fault for unrest was down to there being something missing from black culture that made them naturally prone to violence.\n
- Intro - By the 1980s, two ideas - the idea of culture as a replacement for race and the idea of community had been framing understandings of what was known as “race relations” since the mid-1960s.\n\nIn the 1980s - 2 parallel developments sow the seeds for the segregation which now is said to define many of Britain’s towns and cities.\n\n1. (Arun Kundnani: Chapter 3: “Seeds of Segregation”)\n\nTHE NEW RIGHT\n\nThe new racism of the new right is based on an acceptance of cultural relativism.\n\nRather than arguing that whites are superior to blacks, the new racism argument proposes that each ‘ethnic’ or ‘cultural’ group is better off in their own environment (this is the argument of the BNP today). \n\nThe logical conclusion of this is that ethnic minority groups should not live in the UK because each group has its own ‘natural homeland’ - it is unnatural for non whites to live here.\n\nWithin the UK situation, the election of Margaret Thatcher and the rise of the New Right marks a complete break with both the unifying force of political blackness (last week) and the laissez faire attitude to minority cultural and religious practice promoted by the Labour government in the 60s and 70s.\n\nThe new right wants to manage culture. Non British (non English) cultures are seen as a threat to the sanctity of Britain as a nation.\n\n2. This cultural focus meant that all social problems could be reduced to a problem of culture.\n\nEspecially after the riots of the 1970s and early 1980s, African-Caribbean men in particular were seen to be suffering from having a weak culture. \n\nThe new right argument was that there was something inherent to this weak culture which led young black makes to violence. \n\nIn other words, racism, poor housing, poor educational opportunities, or even the global economic situation had nothing to do with it. The fault for unrest was down to there being something missing from black culture that made them naturally prone to violence.\n
- Left liberals opposed to the New Right had an alternative response to the Brixton riots.\nRather than imposing monolithic English culture, it was felt that the cultural needs of each ethnic group had to be met.\n\nThis was a way of taking the edge off the unified political protest based on political blackness that led to the Brixton riots of 1981. It played into the hands of community leaders who too were opposed to the secular and cross-cultural approach to anti-racist politics.\n\nPolicies, such as more minority interest programming on TV and multicultural educational policies (teaching ethnic minority groups about their own cultures) in schools, were seen to be the way towards calming black communities down and bringing an end to racial unrest.\n\nIn other words, it was perceived that culture rather than politics was at the root of the problems that led to riots and other social disturbances.\n\nLeft and right were in fact unified - the first saw a need for more culture, while the latter felt too much culture was the problem. But both saw culture as the main issue, therefore sidelining the politicisation of anti-racism.\n\n2. The resources being poured into cultural initiatives by local and central government created a niche for so-called “race relations professionals”. \n\nThe idea was to take blacks off the streets and into the town halls where a more civilised debate could take place. A lot of people profited from this personally, therefore keeping the system in place.\n\n3. Community leaders in particular profited from “ethnicised funding” - rather than looking at the overall needs of the people living in a certain area, funding for different initiatives were allocated according to ethnic group \n\n A rigid view of culture dominated the policies being brought in. \n\nThere was no recognition of the different needs of different people within communities and certainly no idea that perhaps separating people into such rigidly defined ‘communities” may sow the seeds for later discontent.\n\nIn the realm of education, we can see how that discontent that leads towards segregation begins. \nWhereas blacks and Asians were reduced to their culture (which was always painted as vibrant and interesting), white students were seen as culture-less. \n\nThis clearly played into the hands of the new right who then used this as a justification for saying that “immigrants” were responsible for diluting and denigrating English culture.\n\nThe problem is that ordinary blacks and other minorities had not asked to be squeezed into these strict cultural straightjackets. But the whole system was being kept in place by the white liberal elite heading up local councils and education boards, and the ethnic minority leaders quite happy to go along with them to ensure their own power.\n
- Left liberals opposed to the New Right had an alternative response to the Brixton riots.\nRather than imposing monolithic English culture, it was felt that the cultural needs of each ethnic group had to be met.\n\nThis was a way of taking the edge off the unified political protest based on political blackness that led to the Brixton riots of 1981. It played into the hands of community leaders who too were opposed to the secular and cross-cultural approach to anti-racist politics.\n\nPolicies, such as more minority interest programming on TV and multicultural educational policies (teaching ethnic minority groups about their own cultures) in schools, were seen to be the way towards calming black communities down and bringing an end to racial unrest.\n\nIn other words, it was perceived that culture rather than politics was at the root of the problems that led to riots and other social disturbances.\n\nLeft and right were in fact unified - the first saw a need for more culture, while the latter felt too much culture was the problem. But both saw culture as the main issue, therefore sidelining the politicisation of anti-racism.\n\n2. The resources being poured into cultural initiatives by local and central government created a niche for so-called “race relations professionals”. \n\nThe idea was to take blacks off the streets and into the town halls where a more civilised debate could take place. A lot of people profited from this personally, therefore keeping the system in place.\n\n3. Community leaders in particular profited from “ethnicised funding” - rather than looking at the overall needs of the people living in a certain area, funding for different initiatives were allocated according to ethnic group \n\n A rigid view of culture dominated the policies being brought in. \n\nThere was no recognition of the different needs of different people within communities and certainly no idea that perhaps separating people into such rigidly defined ‘communities” may sow the seeds for later discontent.\n\nIn the realm of education, we can see how that discontent that leads towards segregation begins. \nWhereas blacks and Asians were reduced to their culture (which was always painted as vibrant and interesting), white students were seen as culture-less. \n\nThis clearly played into the hands of the new right who then used this as a justification for saying that “immigrants” were responsible for diluting and denigrating English culture.\n\nThe problem is that ordinary blacks and other minorities had not asked to be squeezed into these strict cultural straightjackets. But the whole system was being kept in place by the white liberal elite heading up local councils and education boards, and the ethnic minority leaders quite happy to go along with them to ensure their own power.\n
- Left liberals opposed to the New Right had an alternative response to the Brixton riots.\nRather than imposing monolithic English culture, it was felt that the cultural needs of each ethnic group had to be met.\n\nThis was a way of taking the edge off the unified political protest based on political blackness that led to the Brixton riots of 1981. It played into the hands of community leaders who too were opposed to the secular and cross-cultural approach to anti-racist politics.\n\nPolicies, such as more minority interest programming on TV and multicultural educational policies (teaching ethnic minority groups about their own cultures) in schools, were seen to be the way towards calming black communities down and bringing an end to racial unrest.\n\nIn other words, it was perceived that culture rather than politics was at the root of the problems that led to riots and other social disturbances.\n\nLeft and right were in fact unified - the first saw a need for more culture, while the latter felt too much culture was the problem. But both saw culture as the main issue, therefore sidelining the politicisation of anti-racism.\n\n2. The resources being poured into cultural initiatives by local and central government created a niche for so-called “race relations professionals”. \n\nThe idea was to take blacks off the streets and into the town halls where a more civilised debate could take place. A lot of people profited from this personally, therefore keeping the system in place.\n\n3. Community leaders in particular profited from “ethnicised funding” - rather than looking at the overall needs of the people living in a certain area, funding for different initiatives were allocated according to ethnic group \n\n A rigid view of culture dominated the policies being brought in. \n\nThere was no recognition of the different needs of different people within communities and certainly no idea that perhaps separating people into such rigidly defined ‘communities” may sow the seeds for later discontent.\n\nIn the realm of education, we can see how that discontent that leads towards segregation begins. \nWhereas blacks and Asians were reduced to their culture (which was always painted as vibrant and interesting), white students were seen as culture-less. \n\nThis clearly played into the hands of the new right who then used this as a justification for saying that “immigrants” were responsible for diluting and denigrating English culture.\n\nThe problem is that ordinary blacks and other minorities had not asked to be squeezed into these strict cultural straightjackets. But the whole system was being kept in place by the white liberal elite heading up local councils and education boards, and the ethnic minority leaders quite happy to go along with them to ensure their own power.\n
- Today, in light of current obsessions with the “problem” posed by Islam in the UK, multiculturalism as something positive has been put into question..\n\nDavid Cameron’s speech in Munich on February 5 builds on the status quo of the post-9/11 era during which MC is blamed for segregation, particularly between Muslims and wider society.\n\nThe problems of self-segregation as well as terrorism and fundamentalism are extended to the entire Muslim population, whether or not they identify themselves as religious or with the community.\n\nMuslims are seen as wanting to live apart from the white population, especially in areas with high Muslims populations like Bradford and oldham which saw riots in 2001 (week7).\n\nBut is this the full story?\n\nSHOW FILM\n\n2. Kundnani examines the notion of self-segregation. \nMuslims are being blamed for the lack of understanding between communities because they are seen as not wishing to integrate with wider society.\n\nBut, as Kundnani reveals, if we look at what happened in towns such as Bradford and Oldham in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see why communities have become segregated.\n\nFollowing the decline of old industries such as cotton mills, the workers originally brought to Britain from places like Pakistan and their children who were born in the UK lost their jobs along with their fellow white workers.\n\nThe majority of jobs recreated in public services went to white people. Asians generally went into mini-cabbing or running take-aways or restaurants.\n\nAt the same time, council housing policy was discriminatory with the majority of new houses going to whites.\n\nThis meant that Asians were generally confined to the old terraced housing in the run-down inner city areas. When some Asians did move to council estates they were often the victims of abuse.\n\nIn this way, cities became more and more segregated because different groups lived in different areas. This also meant that their children went to different schools so do not know each other. \n
- Today, in light of current obsessions with the “problem” posed by Islam in the UK, multiculturalism as something positive has been put into question..\n\nDavid Cameron’s speech in Munich on February 5 builds on the status quo of the post-9/11 era during which MC is blamed for segregation, particularly between Muslims and wider society.\n\nThe problems of self-segregation as well as terrorism and fundamentalism are extended to the entire Muslim population, whether or not they identify themselves as religious or with the community.\n\nMuslims are seen as wanting to live apart from the white population, especially in areas with high Muslims populations like Bradford and oldham which saw riots in 2001 (week7).\n\nBut is this the full story?\n\nSHOW FILM\n\n2. Kundnani examines the notion of self-segregation. \nMuslims are being blamed for the lack of understanding between communities because they are seen as not wishing to integrate with wider society.\n\nBut, as Kundnani reveals, if we look at what happened in towns such as Bradford and Oldham in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see why communities have become segregated.\n\nFollowing the decline of old industries such as cotton mills, the workers originally brought to Britain from places like Pakistan and their children who were born in the UK lost their jobs along with their fellow white workers.\n\nThe majority of jobs recreated in public services went to white people. Asians generally went into mini-cabbing or running take-aways or restaurants.\n\nAt the same time, council housing policy was discriminatory with the majority of new houses going to whites.\n\nThis meant that Asians were generally confined to the old terraced housing in the run-down inner city areas. When some Asians did move to council estates they were often the victims of abuse.\n\nIn this way, cities became more and more segregated because different groups lived in different areas. This also meant that their children went to different schools so do not know each other. \n
- Today, in light of current obsessions with the “problem” posed by Islam in the UK, multiculturalism as something positive has been put into question..\n\nDavid Cameron’s speech in Munich on February 5 builds on the status quo of the post-9/11 era during which MC is blamed for segregation, particularly between Muslims and wider society.\n\nThe problems of self-segregation as well as terrorism and fundamentalism are extended to the entire Muslim population, whether or not they identify themselves as religious or with the community.\n\nMuslims are seen as wanting to live apart from the white population, especially in areas with high Muslims populations like Bradford and oldham which saw riots in 2001 (week7).\n\nBut is this the full story?\n\nSHOW FILM\n\n2. Kundnani examines the notion of self-segregation. \nMuslims are being blamed for the lack of understanding between communities because they are seen as not wishing to integrate with wider society.\n\nBut, as Kundnani reveals, if we look at what happened in towns such as Bradford and Oldham in the 1980s and 1990s, we can see why communities have become segregated.\n\nFollowing the decline of old industries such as cotton mills, the workers originally brought to Britain from places like Pakistan and their children who were born in the UK lost their jobs along with their fellow white workers.\n\nThe majority of jobs recreated in public services went to white people. Asians generally went into mini-cabbing or running take-aways or restaurants.\n\nAt the same time, council housing policy was discriminatory with the majority of new houses going to whites.\n\nThis meant that Asians were generally confined to the old terraced housing in the run-down inner city areas. When some Asians did move to council estates they were often the victims of abuse.\n\nIn this way, cities became more and more segregated because different groups lived in different areas. This also meant that their children went to different schools so do not know each other. \n
- Where does the Crisis of MC discourse taken up by Cameron originate?\n\nDavid Goodhart and Trevor Phillips.\n\nTrevor Phillips, Chair of the Race and Equality Commission said that Britain was “sleep-walking into segregation”.\n\nHe echoes the belief among many in government that, as Ted Cantle - the author of the ‘community cohesion policy - that there has been “a rise in inter-ethnic conflict.”\n\nSocial problems arising from the fact that late modern capitalist economies such as the UK are not conducive to ensuring rich community life where people care for each other is often blamed in such analyses on ‘too much cultural diversity’.\n\nThis belief echoes the New Right idea that people from different cultures are naturally prone to conflict - This time, however, it is the Centre Left that is saying this!\n\n2. Rather than blaming the failings of MC policies to deal effectively with segregation and the creation of separate communities, the establishment puts the blame onto minority culture. \n\nIn other words, it is still culture that is seen as the main mode of explaining social, political and economic problems. \n\nBy explaining problems in this way, as Kundnani says, the government and the liberal establishment is failing to see that the conditions of globalization - changing nature of work, different forms of migration, political links made transnationally (e.g. resistance to American Empire) are creating a range of new political challenges.\n
- Where does the Crisis of MC discourse taken up by Cameron originate?\n\nDavid Goodhart and Trevor Phillips.\n\nTrevor Phillips, Chair of the Race and Equality Commission said that Britain was “sleep-walking into segregation”.\n\nHe echoes the belief among many in government that, as Ted Cantle - the author of the ‘community cohesion policy - that there has been “a rise in inter-ethnic conflict.”\n\nSocial problems arising from the fact that late modern capitalist economies such as the UK are not conducive to ensuring rich community life where people care for each other is often blamed in such analyses on ‘too much cultural diversity’.\n\nThis belief echoes the New Right idea that people from different cultures are naturally prone to conflict - This time, however, it is the Centre Left that is saying this!\n\n2. Rather than blaming the failings of MC policies to deal effectively with segregation and the creation of separate communities, the establishment puts the blame onto minority culture. \n\nIn other words, it is still culture that is seen as the main mode of explaining social, political and economic problems. \n\nBy explaining problems in this way, as Kundnani says, the government and the liberal establishment is failing to see that the conditions of globalization - changing nature of work, different forms of migration, political links made transnationally (e.g. resistance to American Empire) are creating a range of new political challenges.\n
- 1. Community cohesion is the main idea underpinning the government’s policy to overcome what it sees as the problems brought about by MC.\n\nTed Cantle headed the Community Cohesion Review Team in 2004 which led to the development of the government’s policy on cohesion as a means of overcoming the problems it saw as inherent in multiculturalism.\n\nCommunity cohesion is based on the idea that shared values and national solidarity is more important than a respect for difference which Cantle and others see as divisive.\n\nCantle also sees it as important to work on helping people to “come to terms with cultural diversity”. This is based on an idea, which originates with the New Right, that cultural diversity in some sense goes against ‘nature’.\n\n[Click in Cantle quotes)\nCantle believes that in Britain we have “created a culture in which each different group feels that it is being unfairly treated.” Therefore, we should not “dismiss negative perceptions [of minority ethnic groups] too lightly as racist.”\n\nIn other words, under the community cohesion rubric, racism becomes a light-weight allegation - a worrying trend that could have implications across a wide range of domains, including legal protection from racial discrimination.\n\nArun Kundnani calls community cohesion ‘integrationism’. This is because, as an answer to the failures of MC, the government now advocates that everyone should integrate into a common narrative of Britishness - a sense of shared belonging.\n\nIntegration is portrayed as being completely different to assimilation (the idea that MC originally overturned). Assimilation forces everyone to comply with one way of doing things, while integration is supposed to be about building a common approach to what living together in a diverse society might mean.\n\nHowever, Kundnani and others point out, that in fact integration is not so different from assimilation because so-called British values are stressed above all else. This goes against the fact that a lot of the values that are emphasised - such as democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech - are not particularly British values, but can be found across many societies and cultures. In fact, as we shall see next week, many of those values have been eroded in recent times with the rolling-back of civil liberties in the post-9/11 age.\n\n2. The idea of community cohesion still focuses on the cultural community as central. \n\nIn places like Bradford, the emphasis is placed on building bridges between communities often using highly cliched views of culture.\n\nFor example, a new shopping and educational centre in Bradford called “Spices” is being seen as a key spaces for “bringing cultures together”. \n\nThis is all part of the local government agenda to harness the richness of cultural diversity in the development of the “Bradford brand”.\n\nIt is unclear how such projects can go any way towards reducing institutionalised racism and redress the issues (deindustrialisation, long-term unemployment, discriminatory housing policy) which brought about the current crisis.\n\n3. What do we mean by integration?\nWho needs to change?\nQuestions to think about…\n
- 1. Community cohesion is the main idea underpinning the government’s policy to overcome what it sees as the problems brought about by MC.\n\nTed Cantle headed the Community Cohesion Review Team in 2004 which led to the development of the government’s policy on cohesion as a means of overcoming the problems it saw as inherent in multiculturalism.\n\nCommunity cohesion is based on the idea that shared values and national solidarity is more important than a respect for difference which Cantle and others see as divisive.\n\nCantle also sees it as important to work on helping people to “come to terms with cultural diversity”. This is based on an idea, which originates with the New Right, that cultural diversity in some sense goes against ‘nature’.\n\n[Click in Cantle quotes)\nCantle believes that in Britain we have “created a culture in which each different group feels that it is being unfairly treated.” Therefore, we should not “dismiss negative perceptions [of minority ethnic groups] too lightly as racist.”\n\nIn other words, under the community cohesion rubric, racism becomes a light-weight allegation - a worrying trend that could have implications across a wide range of domains, including legal protection from racial discrimination.\n\nArun Kundnani calls community cohesion ‘integrationism’. This is because, as an answer to the failures of MC, the government now advocates that everyone should integrate into a common narrative of Britishness - a sense of shared belonging.\n\nIntegration is portrayed as being completely different to assimilation (the idea that MC originally overturned). Assimilation forces everyone to comply with one way of doing things, while integration is supposed to be about building a common approach to what living together in a diverse society might mean.\n\nHowever, Kundnani and others point out, that in fact integration is not so different from assimilation because so-called British values are stressed above all else. This goes against the fact that a lot of the values that are emphasised - such as democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech - are not particularly British values, but can be found across many societies and cultures. In fact, as we shall see next week, many of those values have been eroded in recent times with the rolling-back of civil liberties in the post-9/11 age.\n\n2. The idea of community cohesion still focuses on the cultural community as central. \n\nIn places like Bradford, the emphasis is placed on building bridges between communities often using highly cliched views of culture.\n\nFor example, a new shopping and educational centre in Bradford called “Spices” is being seen as a key spaces for “bringing cultures together”. \n\nThis is all part of the local government agenda to harness the richness of cultural diversity in the development of the “Bradford brand”.\n\nIt is unclear how such projects can go any way towards reducing institutionalised racism and redress the issues (deindustrialisation, long-term unemployment, discriminatory housing policy) which brought about the current crisis.\n\n3. What do we mean by integration?\nWho needs to change?\nQuestions to think about…\n
- 1. Community cohesion is the main idea underpinning the government’s policy to overcome what it sees as the problems brought about by MC.\n\nTed Cantle headed the Community Cohesion Review Team in 2004 which led to the development of the government’s policy on cohesion as a means of overcoming the problems it saw as inherent in multiculturalism.\n\nCommunity cohesion is based on the idea that shared values and national solidarity is more important than a respect for difference which Cantle and others see as divisive.\n\nCantle also sees it as important to work on helping people to “come to terms with cultural diversity”. This is based on an idea, which originates with the New Right, that cultural diversity in some sense goes against ‘nature’.\n\n[Click in Cantle quotes)\nCantle believes that in Britain we have “created a culture in which each different group feels that it is being unfairly treated.” Therefore, we should not “dismiss negative perceptions [of minority ethnic groups] too lightly as racist.”\n\nIn other words, under the community cohesion rubric, racism becomes a light-weight allegation - a worrying trend that could have implications across a wide range of domains, including legal protection from racial discrimination.\n\nArun Kundnani calls community cohesion ‘integrationism’. This is because, as an answer to the failures of MC, the government now advocates that everyone should integrate into a common narrative of Britishness - a sense of shared belonging.\n\nIntegration is portrayed as being completely different to assimilation (the idea that MC originally overturned). Assimilation forces everyone to comply with one way of doing things, while integration is supposed to be about building a common approach to what living together in a diverse society might mean.\n\nHowever, Kundnani and others point out, that in fact integration is not so different from assimilation because so-called British values are stressed above all else. This goes against the fact that a lot of the values that are emphasised - such as democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech - are not particularly British values, but can be found across many societies and cultures. In fact, as we shall see next week, many of those values have been eroded in recent times with the rolling-back of civil liberties in the post-9/11 age.\n\n2. The idea of community cohesion still focuses on the cultural community as central. \n\nIn places like Bradford, the emphasis is placed on building bridges between communities often using highly cliched views of culture.\n\nFor example, a new shopping and educational centre in Bradford called “Spices” is being seen as a key spaces for “bringing cultures together”. \n\nThis is all part of the local government agenda to harness the richness of cultural diversity in the development of the “Bradford brand”.\n\nIt is unclear how such projects can go any way towards reducing institutionalised racism and redress the issues (deindustrialisation, long-term unemployment, discriminatory housing policy) which brought about the current crisis.\n\n3. What do we mean by integration?\nWho needs to change?\nQuestions to think about…\n
- 1. Community cohesion is the main idea underpinning the government’s policy to overcome what it sees as the problems brought about by MC.\n\nTed Cantle headed the Community Cohesion Review Team in 2004 which led to the development of the government’s policy on cohesion as a means of overcoming the problems it saw as inherent in multiculturalism.\n\nCommunity cohesion is based on the idea that shared values and national solidarity is more important than a respect for difference which Cantle and others see as divisive.\n\nCantle also sees it as important to work on helping people to “come to terms with cultural diversity”. This is based on an idea, which originates with the New Right, that cultural diversity in some sense goes against ‘nature’.\n\n[Click in Cantle quotes)\nCantle believes that in Britain we have “created a culture in which each different group feels that it is being unfairly treated.” Therefore, we should not “dismiss negative perceptions [of minority ethnic groups] too lightly as racist.”\n\nIn other words, under the community cohesion rubric, racism becomes a light-weight allegation - a worrying trend that could have implications across a wide range of domains, including legal protection from racial discrimination.\n\nArun Kundnani calls community cohesion ‘integrationism’. This is because, as an answer to the failures of MC, the government now advocates that everyone should integrate into a common narrative of Britishness - a sense of shared belonging.\n\nIntegration is portrayed as being completely different to assimilation (the idea that MC originally overturned). Assimilation forces everyone to comply with one way of doing things, while integration is supposed to be about building a common approach to what living together in a diverse society might mean.\n\nHowever, Kundnani and others point out, that in fact integration is not so different from assimilation because so-called British values are stressed above all else. This goes against the fact that a lot of the values that are emphasised - such as democracy, tolerance and freedom of speech - are not particularly British values, but can be found across many societies and cultures. In fact, as we shall see next week, many of those values have been eroded in recent times with the rolling-back of civil liberties in the post-9/11 age.\n\n2. The idea of community cohesion still focuses on the cultural community as central. \n\nIn places like Bradford, the emphasis is placed on building bridges between communities often using highly cliched views of culture.\n\nFor example, a new shopping and educational centre in Bradford called “Spices” is being seen as a key spaces for “bringing cultures together”. \n\nThis is all part of the local government agenda to harness the richness of cultural diversity in the development of the “Bradford brand”.\n\nIt is unclear how such projects can go any way towards reducing institutionalised racism and redress the issues (deindustrialisation, long-term unemployment, discriminatory housing policy) which brought about the current crisis.\n\n3. What do we mean by integration?\nWho needs to change?\nQuestions to think about…\n
- In their statistical study of the debate on the crisis of multiculturalism in Britain, Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson challenge the idea that Britain is Sleepwalking into Segregation as expressed by Trevor Phillips in 2004, an idea which has become cemented since then, becoming commonsense and the basis for new policy away from MC and towards integration.\n\nThey challenge the keys components of the assumptions made about the failures of MC, using statistical data. One of the key assumptions made is that ‘minorities do not want to integrate’ (the reading for this week).\n\nThey look at a variety of elements that make up this argument, such as the prevalence of interethnic mixing among friendship groups, in neighbourhoods, schools and in marriages and partnerships. They find that much of the data purporting to show that minorities do not want to mix are misleading.\n\nFor example, the study carried out for the CRE by YouGov in 2004 which Trevor Phillips used in making the claim that British society is ‘sleepwalking into segregation’ did not use design methods that would ensure it was actually representative of the population. In other words, Finney and Simpson claim, the study found what it wanted to find (why we always have to wary of using statistical data alone!).\n\nThey referred to other data gathered by the Citizenship survey which used much larger samples. On the issue of friendship groups, about which Trevor Phillips was particularly alarmed, this study did find that white people are much less likely to have friends from among ethnic minorities. However, this is more due to the fact that white people make upthe majority of the population and many may never come into contact with members of minority groups. \n\nIn contrast, a high number of ethnic minorities report having friends from other ethnic groups. \n\nAccording to the CRE, a ‘worrying’ proportion of young people have ‘pals exclusively from their own community’. However, Trevor Phillips did not say what this proportion was. According to Finney and Simpson, it is less than 20%.\n\nThey ask whether this is a worrying figure. Their answer: even if there was a growing trend towards mono-ethnic friendhsip groups, this could be explained by changing demographics rather than prejudicial attitudes and self-segregation: ‘There are twice as many black and asian people aged in their twenties than aged in their fifties.’ \nAlso friendship segregation is more prevalent among people who migrated to Britain more recently, with this changing over time as communities settle.\n\nAnother issue stressed by the CRE is residential segregation. However, once again we should wary of believing that minorities are ‘marooned in separated residential areas’.\nAs Finney and Simpson show, more ethnic minority people want to live in mixed areas, but would not feel comfortable living in majority white areas due to the potential for racial abuse and isolation or where they cannot get access to food and community amenities.\nIncome is also a factor, with ethnic minorities generally in lower income brackets often being unable to move out of inner city areas where ethnic minorities are concentrated.\n\nRather than ethnic minorities choosing to self-segregate as dominant opinion would have it, it is the white majority who seem most isolated and least willing to mix.\n\nOn the positive side, however, Finney and Simpson point out that there are 650,000 people of mixed heritage in England alone and that this is one of the fastest growing ethnic group in the UK. There is also more and more marriage between people of different ethnic groups. So we must ask ourselves how much of the fear-mongering about segregated societies is based in reality and how much comes out of a desire to demonise multiculturalism in light of events such as 9/11 and 7/7 which are spuriously linked to the notion that multiculturalism has failed.\n