Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech on security and tackling terrorism in Munich in has re-ignited a debate over whether ethnic and racial segregation is the root cause of so-called home-grown terrorism, in particular the species that manifested itself so tragically on July 7th 2005 in London. Given my ethnicity (I’m the UK-born son of Hindu Indian immigrants) you may expect me to be apoplectic over the tone and content of Cameron’s rhetoric; at least I should be according to Labour’s Sadiq Khan MP, who accused the PM of ‘writing propaganda for the English Defence League.’ Yet I find myself agreeing with much of Cameron’s sentiments regarding the segregation that is rife in our nation, if not much of how he sees the failed ‘doctrine of State multiculturalism’ being rectified.
Even the most ardent critic of Cameron’s approach cannot deny certain home truths, not least that on 7/7 London was subject to terrorist atrocities which were planned in the UK and perpetrated by UK citizens, suggesting the existence of a group – however small and marginalised within their own communities – of young men willing to target innocent people they share a country with. It is also clear from my own experience, having grown up in Manchester and living now in London – two of the most ethnically diverse cities anywhere in Europe – that despite the appearance of being truly mixed communities, British cities are often split into sharply demarcated ghettoes along ethnic lines that remain largely unconnected to ‘mainstream’ society around them. Indeed, Cameron’s critics fall prey to cognitive bias based on the availability heuristic; ‘multiculturalism can’t have failed, just look at my local marketplace/library/leisure centre.’ I could regale you with anecdotes about Walthamstow Market or London’s Chinatown and their bewitching mix of people, and the Guardian seems keen to promote this view judging by Madeleine Bunting’s latest article and many letters to the editor; none of these would serve to deny that for so many in the UK, people who share post-codes all too often don’t feel as though they’re from the same planet.
In itself immigrant populations grouping together may reflect perfectly innocent and understandable motives; remaining close to those with whom you share a common heritage makes living in unfamiliar territory more palatable whilst you’re still ‘fresh off the boat’ as it were, as well as smoothing business and other relations between like-minded people. If this initial huddling fails to lead to greater integration and we end up with discrete ‘each-to-their-own’ enclaves, either the internal push to do so is defunct or the external pull of society at large is failing; it’s surely a little of both. Cameron’s point is that if the State practices ‘passive tolerance,’ remaining neutral to all cultural practices as long as they are lawful, the ‘pull’ factor falls away and can result in segregated communities which fail as a whole to subscribe to the values of the wider national (and supra-national) narrative – and that tensions would inevitably follow, leading in the extreme to the EDL-style rejection of different cultures, and its mirror image of the regression into hateful ideology.
To me, however, no matter if there’s a grain of truth in Cameron’s assertion that extremist sentiment is fostered by the toleration of more moderate streams of thought, the remedies he suggests are liable to being ineffective at best and inflammatory at worst.
Liberals automatically recoil at talk of having citizens subscribe to a set national identity, and rightly so – there is an inherent challenge in balancing people’s right to freedom of religious and cultural practice and the State promoting a certain set of values to which we expect everyone to sign up to; and perhaps more pertinently, to dealing with individuals and groups that neglect aspects of those values. On reflection I’d say that the UK has broadly got this balance wrong in recent decades, but that Cameron’s suggested cures – to ban visitors to the UK whose views we find distasteful, or to withdraw State funding from community groups who don’t do enough to encourage integration into society – miss the point entirely and are in direct contradiction with vast swathes of government policy, current or past.
For if we are truly to create a society in which people are at once free to hold on to their private beliefs without fear that the tyranny of the majority will quash their individual liberty; in which we see each other as partners in each others’ well-being and not opposed in our goals; in which our public realm truly reflects, as Cameron puts it, “a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone;” then the values and practices embodied by the State must themselves be ‘open to everyone,’ they must be secular and humanist in nature, which has some uncomfortable consequences to the very Conservatives who may welcome the PM’s remarks.
For there is a stark contradiction at the heart of Cameron’s thoughts. If it is wrong to give taxpayers’ money to community groups deemed ineffective at integrating their members into mainstream society, why does the State continue to fund faith schools, many of which encourage the very separatism we seek to avoid through their selection criteria and curriculum? If it is wrong to give a platform to those who preach what society finds unpalatable, why was the Pope given such a warm welcome when his Church’s views on homosexuality and birth control go against what the nation holds to be true? If we are to apply strict criteria to recipients of government funding, why do we not apply them to nations with whom we do business but who fail to live up to our standards on human rights?
Indeed, the contradiction strikes at the very core of this government’s overall strategy. A strong, secular public realm is key to a strong, cohesive society, as it promotes people from diverse backgrounds having shared experiences that tie them together; Cameron even says so when he champions the National Citizen Service. And yet we seem set to close libraries, privatise much of our common forest land and hand over education to faith groups and the like – all of which will reduce the opportunity for our children to share their lives with those from varied cultures, to learn from them, to learn not to fear them. If we really want to tear down the barriers that divide us from our neighbours and countrymen, if we truly seek to see the best in them, we must first build a strong and strongly secular public realm that celebrates our diversity and cements our shared humanity; without that, speeches such as this will be nothing but tilting at windmills.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The tactical voting choice to stop Reform in Hull and East Yorkshire Mayor contest
Temporary Traffic Order - Nethergate
Water bosses could face jail for cover-ups
Plan to build bungalow next to Craven Arms Fire Station rejected after inspector warns firefighters could see into windows
2025 Local Election Preview
expats
Andy Daer
Mike Peters
Simon R
Nonconformistradical
11 Comments
An interesting article and perspective, spoilt only by the parroting of Guardian horror stories on libraries, schools and forests. There’s an interesting chapter in either Freakonomics of The Undercover Economist on the likely mechanism of residential separation along racial lines – on short, if only a few people are prejudiced then there’s a self-perpetuating tendancy to the extremes and very low probability of mixed communities.
Excellent article: especialy the concluding paragraph.
There is nothing contradictory about supporting an impetus to integrate and forge a joint culture and faith schools.
Faith communities are some of the most diverse communities in our nation. You get Muslims, Christians, Jews, from every nation and cultural background on earth. The point is that it isn’t a binary choice between forcing an anodyne, entirely value-neutral “official” culture on everyone and Ghettoisation and division.
We need to meet people half-way. We need an official bias towards promoting integration, liberal values and a shared identity but one based on tolerance of different cultures and choices beneath that. Faith schools are not detrimental to these aims by definition. If run properly they can support integration and liberal values by meeting communities half way. Of course if run badly they can damage community integration and liberal values. But the solution to that is to make sure they are run well, along liberal lines, not to get rid of them at all.
I just use faith schools as an example. There are of course plenty of other possible examples but the same basic principles apply.
@Andrew Tennant – thanks, I think :-). The points about libraries, schools and forests are not Guardian horror stories, they are illustrative of the contradictions behind Cameron’s thinking – exhorting us to integrate more, whilst cutting the funding for the neutral, public space where we can do so effectively. I concede the forest example was just put in there to antagonise, but you get the point!
@Stephen W – sorry, but who said anything about ‘forcing an anodyne’ anything onto anyone…?! I am arguing for a secular public realm, not for forcing people to engage with it. I am arguing for the people to step outside their narrow comfort zones and embrace the values we share in common, not to abandon their own – please don’t mis-represent what I wrote… Also, I fail to see where I argued for getting rid of faith schools – although I do think we should get rid of State funding for them.
Again, to be clear, it is the secularisation of the public realm I’m in favour of, to give people from all backgrounds, all faiths (and none) a common space in which to express themselves.
Mr Buch,
A fantastic article, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I asked Nick Clegg about faith schools once during one of his Q&As last spring (or perhaps the previous autumn). My assertion was that faith schools are incompatible with a well-integrated, truly multicultural society. Mr Clegg agreed, but told me (using that phrase he is so fond of) that we shouldn’t “let the best be the enemy of the good,” insofar as many faith schools are very good. I think, however, that there are more important things at stake here, namely the health of our very society, and however well the students of these schools may know their times tables, they will be impoverished by their segregated education.
As it happens of course, and as studies have shown, it simply isn’t true that faith schools are better than others, they just tend to be very selective (lots of nice well-behaved middle class kids), which makes things considerably easier for them in comparison with the local comprehensive which has to take all comers.
Excuse some of my poor phrasing, but I think my point stands.
A secular, humanist, common, public space within which to engage is by definition anodyne.
I know you don’t want to force people to abandon their own values but if they are not allowed to bring those values into that public space to some extent then that effectively acts as a barrier to them coming into it at all.
Faith schools can act as agents of integration or agents against integration. But they are dramatically popular with the public and various communities. Not to mention the fact that faith communities are already among the most diverse of communities we have. The best course of action is to support them while ensuring they are acting as agents of integration. Thus meeting communities and people half way.
A secular public sphere, if that went to the point of not allowing funding for faith schools just because they’re faith schools (for example), among presumably other choices, would therefore not be a neutral space. Secular in this sense does not mean neutral. For many people especially from some of our less integrated communities secular in this sense is not neutral it is rather an arena where they do not feel comfortable and thus encourages them to stay in relative ghettos.
I agree that we need an accessible public sphere. But the way to do this is not by things like removing funding from faith schools (among others) that are places where communities feel and identity with, but precisely having these in the public sphere, alongside truly secular, humanist etc institutions, but regulating and encouraging them to ensure they are promoting integration and those liberal values we need. A half way house so to speak.
We will always have people and groups who are outside the mainstream and that is fine. As you correctly said, no one wants to impose some “offical” culture. But what we need is a constant trend and flow in the direction of integration and liberal values that encourages people to come together and assumes that we do. But I don’t think the best way to do this is by having a static value-neutral public space because a) bits of this will just be colonised in various cultural ghettos anyway (as we have seen with many non-faith state schools) and b)the definition of what actually is value neutral will never be possible to fully decide on.
If there was not a single black or brown person living anywhere in Britain, it would still be incredibly mixed and multicultural.
And not just between those in the different countries and regions that make up the nation, with many still speaking their own languages and eating their own food.
How many portions of haggis and seaweed cake are ever served up in English kitchens? How many choose to ruin good white fish by dipping it in stale and indigestible batter, and leaving it to fry for far too long?
Or slowly kill themselves with various forms of pie that vary from county to county. Most of with a car or train pass are well aware of the jealously-guarded regional differences, despite being a small country with national media.
Once we start examining religious or class differences, we really start to notice the true multiculturalism of the British.
If David Cameron were to move a mile from the few posh streets into the tower blacks of the Harrow Road, we would at loss to understand what cultural ties really bind us.
This is well worth an essay, and many have written about the vast and rich diversity of the white British. Should the boorish ignorance of those on the EDL and BNP marches prevail? Or what other irritating characteristics that separate us all?
Suffice to say that until we can end the multiculturalism of the native British, we cannot begin to do other than celebrate the rich diversity of people of other cultures that have truly enriched our food, our entertainment and our language and our lives.
We are all much the better for it.
@Stephen W – sorry, perhaps I’m the one being unclear.
Nowhere in my article or in the comments have I called for a ‘value-neutral’ public sphere – far from it, I believe in a public sphere that celebrates and promotes the values we share in common. As for the word ‘anodyne,’ I understand it to mean ‘inoffensive,’ (or ‘soothing’ in a medical context) – I am unsure whether you mean that to be derogatory, but why a public realm that brought people of all faiths and none together from all class, cultural and sexuality backgrounds together would be bland is beyond me…
To be clear – I am not a supporter of the French model, banning religious articles in public and the like. I do, however, recoil at the Establishment of an official State faith, at the publicly-funded sanctioning of segregated education – and housing and service provision that follows – and so on.
Please provide a citation for your remark that faith schools “are dramatically popular with the public and various communities.” I can provide a citation suggesting that the public funding of faith schools is deeply unpopular, but given that its source is a campaigning organisation with that belief I am prepared to concede that some sort of meta-analysis of the public’s opinion on this matter is required. Despite this, I am loathe to base public policy solely on what is popular – a very, very dangerous road to travel down…
@Jonathan Hunt – not sure I quite follow your argument. I agree that there are myriad regional, class-based, geographical variations in British culture – that’s what makes living here such a great experience for so many – but you’d be hard-pressed to deny that some common threads run through them.
Your last paragraph totally misunderstands my point – nobody seeks to end the diversity in our nation, just to break down the artificial, often officially-sanctioned barriers between enclaves of monoculture, which would effectively see us all learning even more about each other.
A general point – I thought of this late last night so forgive me if it sounds trite…
In politics, we often hear talk of Big Tents, in which everyone comes together under one roof – that’s analogous to the value-neutral, blandifying monoculture that Stephen W unfortunately thinks I’m advocating. We also often hear about Campsite politics – no need for us all to leave our own tents, we can remain separated from each other in our own worlds, as long as we step out occasionally to tend to the common facilities – that’s how I see multiculturalism being practised in the UK currently (with exceptions…), where communities segregate along class/faith/race lines, stay within their ‘tents,’ and are asked to respect the rules of the campsite as a minimum requirement.
So here’s my thought – forget the Big Tent, forget the Campsite – step outside, open your eyes and recognise that we’re all sleeping under the same stars, breathing the same air, drinking the same water. That we have to face challenges together and are best off doing this by making the most of our individuals rights, abilities and strengths. That we share so much in common that having public sanction to divide ourselves along these lines makes us miss the bigger picture of our shared humanity, and leads to inter-tent suspicions and rivalry…
[/end idiotic analogy…]
What I am saying is that we white folks already live in a multicultural Britain, some enjoyable, some awful, most of it just plain boring. It is the totality, the diversity, that makes it the nation it is. In reality Britain is a nation we love to live in because its diversity is much wider that this.
Our heritage of empire is that people from many lands bring a variety of so many wonderful things that makes us love living in a truly multicultural land.
It is not anything a prime minister or government can change, even if they could legislate to make us as homogenous as possible. That would require us all going to the same schools, living in similar homes, earning that same money, wearing the same clothes, eating the same food.
Everything that would involve living in a socialist state. Is this Call-me-Dave really wants when he says multiculturalism isn’t working?
But we all know whhat he really means and most fair-minded people totally abhor it.
“Given my ethnicity (I’m the UK-born son of Hindu Indian immigrants) you may expect me to be apoplectic over the tone and content of Cameron’s rhetoric”
Not at all, for if you a rational and sensible individual who rejects the sectarian objectives transnational progressivism whereby identity is whirling merry-go-round of ethnic religious and cultural grievances, then it is easy to recognise that tolerating the extreme as the gatekeeper and custodian to the violent is a very poor way to build a healthy and vibrant society.
I don’t know how well multiculturalism, or the backlash against it, translates from culture to culture but I have always found it to be pernicious in the British sense because it has historically come combined with mass immigration which encourages a minority to call for changes from broader society to accommodate their needs.
Why does this matter? It matters because one of the very definitions of Britishness is captured in the words of Mrs Patrick Campbell:
“Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!”
In short; it is not my place to interfere in the law-abiding private lives of others, immigrant or otherwise, nor too is it the immigrants place to interfere in my private life, particularly in advocating change to what constitutes law-abiding activity.
This is inherently a tolerant viewpoint, which is why it is perceived as deeply offensive when minorities call for alien concepts such as sharia, or abuse soldiers returning from war zones, because the tolerance is not being reciprocated, it is being abused.
However, where you get stupid people who believe that Islam has no place in Britain, or brown people should get back to where they came from, you will find me arguing against them.
That said, when you get outraged people who say that political Islam has no place in Britain, or any essentially alien orthodoxy that a minority is trying to push down the throats of the ‘natives’, I have a lot of sympathy.
I will likewise argue against those who advocate policy that deliberately seeks to create division between a people, by promoting their racial, ethnic, cultural difference, because all that matters to me is that someone is British, and considers them-self British.
This is essentially what transnational progressivism is!
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/a-future-european-kratos-%E2%80%93-will-it-be-legitimate-in-the-absence-of-a-demos
I have read this absorbing piece by Prateek Buch and his argument for a `secular realm’ is well couched and draws upon much concerned academic and media and comments to editors sources stemming from David Cameron`s speech that claimed the existing model of `State Multiculturism’ is not fit for purpose.
The most important question in my experience is underpinned by the ability of all communities , ethnic or indigenous, is to live together in harmony, under the rule of law and to seek to communicate together.
Where community differences can be seen best is where there is a natural local and individual positive non-violent or social threatening effusion of cultural identity that would inlclude language,dress,arts,food and education and sport and a range of culturally broad expressed and mutually enjoyed shared activities.
It all must be done in a non threatening and non without fear evoking and with genuine non- violent sets of social capital desires coming from all corners of community.
I suggest that a using of `availability heuristic’ examples of prediction and looking at responses in a proportion of any population in the UK is worth revisting for a differnet understanding of how people might vote on important parts of the `New Politics’ in the `Coalition Agreement’.