Dialogue: Social Exclusion and Segregation Track: Undesirable effects Title: Achieving integration in multicultural societies Author: Kay

Hampton
Key Issues The notion of integration or an integrated society has engaged the minds of British politicians and academics alike since the Post World War 2 period and continues to dominate thinking and planning in relation to social inclusion. It is fair to say that the discourse around British immigration generally focuses on concerns relating to cultural diversity and racial discrimination with the key barriers to social integration being linked to inequality, limited interaction, and the absence of a single national identity. Ideas in this respect have evolved over the last three decades and in effect, it may be argued that emerging visions of socially inclusive and integrated communities are strongly influenced by two interrelated elements:- equality and social interaction (or good race relations) It is within this context that I intend to explore the following three issues/questions: 1 Is cultural diversity a threat to Integration? 2 Is it possible to maintain good race relations with increasing diversity? 3 How might social inclusion based on good race relations be successfully achieved in multicultural societies? As key factors in shaping divisions in societies, diversity and difference exercised the minds of social thinkers for centuries particularly in relation to understanding and explaining racial conflict. Presently, with the ever increasing movements of people, the latter it would appear presents less of a philosophical challenge than it does a moral dilemma with governments across the world frantically seeking policy solutions to harmonise community conflicts that are underpinned by concerns around cultural and ethnic diversity. It is therefore crucial for contemporary scholars to seek ways in which individuals and societies can live amicable with diversity, particularly in the light of an irreversible pattern of increased global migration which brings with it wider diversity within nation states. The complexion of Britain, for example, is changing and, as a result, communities have become more diverse in terms of race, nationality and ethnic background. Further, the asylum seekers dispersal programme has led to a growth of new communities in neighbourhoods across Britain and, in some cases, tensions between new arrivals and local communities. There is now a greater diversity within

diversity, which can create its own tensions but also importantly, opportunities. What it means to be British is different now and will be different in the future from what it has been in the past. Currently, within Britain, there is discourse around the threat that migration poses for stability particularly in relation to asylum seekers and refugees, where polls consistently show Britons over-estimate the number of asylum seekers coming to the country and pessimism remains about the state of race relations generally. A conflation of popular disaffection, the absence of moral/political leadership in the face of deafening and bullying media comment on asylum is creating a vacuum that is being easily filled by an increasingly plausible far right agenda for certain white communities. Such developments are not necessarily unique to Britain as there is evidence to suggest that these patterns are mirrored elsewhere in Europe. It is therefore critical to shift the debate on migration to one which is grounded in opportunity, where the focus is on the benefits of migration and the emphasis on respecting diversity with the latter being reconstructed as a positive rather than a negative element of integration. Content 1 Is cultural diversity a threat to Integration?

A fundamental problem with the notion of cultural, ethnic or racial diversity is that it is often, negatively constructed, narrowly defined and selectively interpreted. For instance, it is more readily used to refer to mainly minority communities, often ignoring cultural differences between and amongst majority, essentially white communities. Similarly, the idea of diversity within minority communities who are themselves diverse is not fully explored. And, finally, the concept is curiously more often than not associated with immigrants. Cultural diversity is therefore perceived as something that is not necessarily part of a given society but rather, as something that emerges from the outside thus posing a threat to an otherwise stable, solid, cohesive nation state. Similarly, the process of immigration (which brings with it diversity) whilst global, more often than not is perceived as a national threat, particularly in relation to national identity; public services; employment and educational opportunities. Such fears result in social closure constructed along cultural, racial and religious lines and is effectively sustained by misinformation, stereotypes and prejudices creating greater tensions within communities, poor race relations and greater divisions between people and that are culturally or racially different. For example, reaction to the arrival of immigrants to Britain mainly from the ex-colonies between 1945-1982, was marked with overt fear, suspicion and concern with the then government and media playing a key role during this period, in creating unsavoury images of the so-called coloured arrivals who were portrayed as a grave danger to British identity and culture. Such negative reactions created notable divisions between immigrants and settled communities, soured social relationships and sowed the seeds for contemporary forms of racism and social segregation. In Britain, immigrants continue to be viewed as alien and outsiders purely on the basis of their cultural, ethnic or religious differences. Such conceptions, invariably impact on contemporary definitions of identities, with those of immigrant origin being defined and labelled as ethnic minorities-hence occupying a position that lies on the margins of mainstream British society with the majority still not fully accepted or socially integrated into mainstream British society despite being born here or having political citizenship for some 40 years.

-2-

It might be argued therefore that the real threat to integration is not necessarily cultural diversity per se but fear and reluctance on the part of receiving nations to accept and respect diversity and difference. The evidence on the ground suggests that most receiving nations, in responding to the settlement of immigrants, tend to grapple with the complexity of irresolvable cultural differences which they attempt to neutralise by assimilation rather than on fostering inclusion based on common values underpinned by for example, equality, fairness and justice. Based on British experience, It may be argued that if nation states are to be truly multicultural then individuals and communities would need to become comfortable with their own identifies. This might mean confronting fears about the loss of traditionally defined national or personal identities and a willingness to embrace a new vision for the creation of whole and integrated communities. More importantly, it will also mean managing the tensions between traditional and modern social attitudes to difference and candidly seeking to address the somewhat difficult issues arising from conflicting belief systems whether these be faith, class or culturally based. Achieving the above requires strong political commitment and leadership as often immigration and asylum issues are ruthlessly used by political parties to foster their own political ends. This process could involve, frank discussions and debate within a negotiable human rights framework with a view to both facilitating and seeking to promote good race relations and social inclusion.

Is it possible to maintain good race relations with increasing diversity?

Britain is unique in that it specifically legislates on good race relations. The 1976 Race relations Act (amended in 2000) embodies a duty to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups. Worth noting is the fact that, this piece of legislation emerged within a climate of strong anti-immigrant sentiment in the post war period with a view to creating stable, integrated communities. Yet, despite being in place for almost a quarter of a century, it is evident that British society remains deeply divided in parts with communities being socially, and sometimes even spatially, segregated along racial, cultural and religious lines. Indeed, the disturbances in our Northern towns of Burnley, th Bradford and Oldham in 2001; the events following11 September; high profile media coverage of asylum seeker and refugee issues, and the rise of the far right across Europe have reawakened deeply rooted prejudices and stereotypes which have resulted in an increase in racism and xenophobia, directed mainly at new arrivals. The latter while not necessarily white are nevertheless, culturally and religiously different and are perceived as a threat to settled communities, some who are themselves culturally diverse and marginalised from mainstream British society. Indeed, recent evidence reveals that the latter appear more threatened by the arrival of new migrants that their indigenous counterparts. So what does good relations mean within this context? Legislation has been useful to some extent but good race relations clearly rests upon developing harmonious relationships built around an awareness and understanding of and respect for different cultures. Moreover, it is essential to insure that institutional practices do not contribute directly or indirectly to the creation of inequalities, marginalisation and social exclusion. Notion of good race relations which strongly influenced early British academic thinking on immigrants and related race discrimination matters have transformed over time but remains relevant to our contemporary thinking, especially in regard to solutions for

-3-

building integrated communities. Presently, the idea of good race relations can be best described as being underpinned by core principles of equality, unity, respect and co-operation between groups of people that are culturally, religiously and racially different. In this context, cultural diversity is not necessarily a challenge to good race relations and multicultural nation states can foster social inclusion and good race relations if they create the appropriate environment for change. The latter can be achieved by ensuring equal rights and equal opportunities for all individuals; accepting the rights of all individuals to identify with and maintain their cultural heritage but at the same time sharing an underlying identity based on a sense of belonging to a wider inclusive community rooted in common citizenship.

Achieving this would require a step change to increase levels of public confidence so that people and communities are able to trust and believe that there is a meaningful role for them to play in the civic, economic and political life of the state. Thus it might be argued that the real threat to social exclusion and harmonious race relations is disadvantage, inequality and discrimination not necessarily diversity per se.

How might social inclusion based on good race relations be successfully achieved in multicultural societies?

We should not give in to the notion that divided communities are the authors of their own social exclusion through some perverse refusal to get along. I have argued above that although resistance to immigrants are often constructed around ethnic and cultural diversity, very often aspects of social exclusion lie deeply embedded within the structure of societies, connected to long-standing discontentment and disengagement from public affairs and in certain circumstances, the arrival of new migrants is somewhat of a final straw.

The complexities of racial exclusion must therefore be considered within a broader framework of social class and other forms of social inequalities. Strategies to address social exclusion must therefore be holistic and jointly owned by key stakeholders but driven by a political desire for social inclusion with a strong commitment to foster proper civic engagement around common core values. Attempts to address settlement of immigrants have generally focused primarily on the induction of new arrivals with an expectation that they will assimilate and become part of the host state. Instead, it is being suggested here that integration is a two way process- in addition to preparing new arrivals for settlement, societies themselves ought to evolve and be flexible to adapt to diversity- a point which requires to be addressed by those designing policy nationally as well as those delivering services on the ground.

Locally, all sectors have a responsibility to remedy inequality and promote positive interaction/good race relations but the role of central, devolved and local government is pivotal. In particular, their responsibility to provide the leadership and the means to address these issues is crucial. For example, in Britain, since the 60s the government has progressively increased sanctions against discrimination as reflected in our successive Race Relations Legislation (1965; 1976; 2000) and continues to place emphasis on the requirements to promote equality and good race relations.

-4-

Yet it is important to note that legislation whilst being an extremely powerful tool for change is limited in terms of bringing about cultural and attitude change. Ultimately, the success of strategies to deliver social inclusion will depend on regular mainstream activities, including for example, a clear understanding the nature of diverse communities; establishing evidence base for policy on racerelated matters; joining up policy objectives; but more critically, promoting a culture and a climate in which equality and citizenship are synonymous values; and discrimination is socially unacceptable thus instilling confidence in communities to address points of difference and commonality with maturity.

-5-