Dear
Bernard
Integration is one of those concepts that most people desire, but few can
define. It is easier to describe what it's not - neither assimilation nor
a society of enclaves, as your own report on Britishness put it - than what
it is.
Part of the difficulty is that we focus on the wrong issue. The problem of
integration is generally seen as synonymous with the problem of immigration,
and of how to manage the diversity that immigrants bring. But the real issue
is not the integration of immigrants but the fragmentation of British society.
Historically, postwar immigrants to Britain were concerned less with preserving
their cultural differences than with achieving political equality. Only over
the past two decades have minority groups sought to define themselves primarily
by their differences. Why? Because they have been encouraged to do so by a
society that has become wary of the notion of common values, but seeks instead
to celebrate cultural distinctiveness. In this process, the very meanings
of equality and social justice have been redefined, from the right to be treated
the same despite one's cultural and ethnic differences, to the right to be
treated differently because of them.
The consequence has been the fragmentation of society, as different communities
assert their particular identities and compete with each other for resources
and recognition. The old universalising language of equality has been replaced
by the new and divisive language of identity.
If we are serious about integration, then, we need to start thinking not so
much about immigration or citizenship ceremonies but more about how to challenge
the politics of identity and to give new political meaning to the language
of civic universalism. After all, there seems little point in having citizenship
ceremonies to ease immigrants into the club when no one seems to know what
the club stands for in the first place.
With best wishes,
Kenan
Malik
------------------------------------------------
Dear
Kenan
If we agree that integration is neither assimilation nor a society of separate
enclaves, then between those two extremes there is a great range and diversity
of types of integration. It might be dangerous or restrictive to try to define
the term too closely. My report, The New and the Old, said that, to us, 'integration
means not simply mutual respect and tolerance between different groups but
continual interaction, engagement and civic participation'. Living in separate
enclaves could be disintegrative, if those enclaves do not mix and mingle
to some degree.
But I am amazed that you say 'the real issue is not the integration of immigrants
but the fragmentation of British society'. What fragmentation? I am an Englishman
living in Scotland. Most Scots have a strong sense of Scottishness but also
see themselves as British. A sense of double-identity has not been uncommon,
even before post-war immigration. Think of the Irish in Britain, and the Jews.
Common values do exist (and human rights legislation actually brings many
of them into law), but so do cultural differences. Talk of fragmentation seems
to me the scare-talk of a few London tabloids hostile to Scottish devolution,
hostile to the Welsh language and hostile to immigrants, often verging on
racism.
The New and the Old said very clearly that cultural diversity existed within
an overarching sense of Britishness, and of the values and practices of democracy
- what you well call 'the language of civic universalism'. But we drew distinctions.
'Britishness', including British patriotism, is a strong and good concept,
but it is not the whole culture. Whoever speaks of a British novel, rather
than English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh? And in sport FIFA allows the UK uniquely
to field four national teams. Disintegrative or just peculiar?
Some real worries certainly; not about disintegration, however, but about
apathy and lack of public spirit. But this was nothing to do with moving the
idea of justice from equal treatment of individuals to equal treatment of
all groups. That seems to me a fearful fantasy, and something I certainly
resist. 'Group rights' can be bad for individuals, especially women.
Best wishes
Bernard
Crick
-----------------------------------------------
Dear
Bernard
You misread my intention. I have no desire to defend an essentialised British
culture (as spurious a concept as the organic Scottish culture to which you
seem attracted). What concerns me is the transformation that has taken place
in recent years from the politics of ideology to the politics of identity;
that is, from solidarity defined in political terms - as collective action
in pursuit of certain political ideals - to solidarity defined in terms of
ethnicity or culture.
Why is this a problem? Well, look at the case of Bradford. In the late 1970s,
anti-racist protest in the city focused around four main issues - racist attacks,
immigration controls, police brutality and workplace discrimination. The local
council responded to this militancy by launching its multicultural programme,
declaring that every section of the 'multiracial, multicultural city' had
'an equal right to maintain its own identity, culture, language, religion
and customs'. Within five years, the focus of anti-racist struggle had shifted
from political to cultural issues, beginning with demands for Muslim schools,
separate education for girls, and halal meat - and ending, most explosively,
in the confrontation over The Satanic Verses.
Political struggles unite across ethnic or cultural divisions; cultural struggles
inevitably fragment. Since council funding in Bradford was now linked to cultural
identity, so different groups began asserting their particular identities
ever more fiercely, establishing new divisions and ensuring that multiculturalism
segregated the city more effectively than even racism had.
This shift from politically based to culturally based identity has now become
a key feature of British political life. This is not tabloid scare-talk. As
someone who believes in open borders, my views on immigration would probably
be more loathsome to Daily Mail readers than yours would be. But
as an anti-racist, I've never bought into the ideology of diversity - the
promotion of difference has always been at the heart, not of the anti-racist,
but of the racist agenda.
Finally, this is not a problem that I see being solved by a few citizenship
classes. Political problems require political solutions, not bureaucratic
ones.
Best wishes,
Kenan
------------------------------------------------
Dear
Kenan
I wonder how far apart we really are in practice? You say that 'political
problems require political solutions, not bureaucratic ones'. I agree, but
politics, as the great Edmund Burke said, 'is the art of compromise'; and
in my In Defence of Politics I added, 'of creative compromise'. Yes,
some have developed a rampant ideology of diversity; but others an equally
strident divisive ideology of Britishness, as meaning a complete unity of
cultural and political spheres. But neither describes society in the United
Kingdom as it is, and was even before postwar immigration. That is why I remind
you that the Scots and Welsh remain Scots and Welsh wherever they go, but
also British. Why not Muslims and Hindus too? I think, philosophically, you
commit the fallacy of the excluded middle. And in actual politics life is
a perpetual movement of different emphases between our British identity and
other identities within that framework of loyalty. I have no sympathy with
those who do not give that loyalty.
I understand why David Blunkett and Trevor Phillips prefer to speak of 'diversity'
rather than 'multiculturalism'. For there are some who use 'multiculturalism'
as a claim to group rights, as if standing outside human rights as such (which
pertain to individuals). But most sociologists and historians would simply
use it to point to a pluralism of sub-cultures within our state. Britain is
not France. Your gibe at any organic notion of a Scottish culture as being
spurious makes you sound more Southern English than ever I was! Some conservative
Englishmen and London journalists cannot accept that Britishness is a wider
concept. Englishness itself has changed in my lifetime, not as a result of
the new immigration but as a result of the discrediting of the establishment
in the wake of the Second World War, and of the decline of the cult of the
gentleman in face of consumer society and the influence of the mass media.
The cultures of the immigrants also change.
Social forces modify us all more than law and bureaucracy; but they modify,
not remove, real but tolerable differences.
Greetings,
Bernard
----------------------------------------------------
Dear
Bernard
Am I being Southern English? Only if it's Southern English to point out that
much of what passes for Scottish identity today was actually invented by English
administrators in the nineteenth century. It's not just the idea of an organic
Scottish culture that is spurious. So are similar claims about Jewish culture,
Muslim culture - or, indeed, English culture. The problem of multiculturalism
is not simply that it can lead to claims for group rights; it is also that
it embodies the idea of society as composed of a small number organic cultures
dancing around each other.
This exchange of letters began as a debate about the meaning of integration.
My point was, and remains, that the problem of integration is not primarily
one of immigration but one of social fragmentation - of the way that the universalising
language of equality has been replaced by the divisive language of identity.
The question is not one of whether one can be Scots or Muslim and still be
British - one clearly can - but whether the concept of common identity still
has meaning in an age in which we seem to lack the political vision to do
much more than celebrate our differences.
There is too often a confusion between the diversity of peoples and the diversity
of values. Multiculturalists argue that the presence in a society of diversity
of peoples precludes the possibility of common values. Little Englanders suggest
that such values are possible only within an ethnically homogenous society.
Both views are products of a society that seems unwilling to forge shared
values and common identities through a process of political dialogue and struggle,
a process whereby different values are put to the test, and a collective language
of citizenship emerges.
Best wishes,
Kenan
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear
Kenan
You are obviously sensitive to my point that Scottishness within Britishness
is an overwhelming illustration of the fact that we have been - and are -
a multicultural society without fragmentation. For you make the historically
preposterous assertion that 'much of what passes for Scottish identity today
was actually invented by English administrators in the nineteenth century'.
In fact, ever since the Act of Union in 1707 Scots administered Scots - a
classic example of English indirect rule, not cultural assimilation.
But I like your phrase about multiculturalism as 'a small number of organic
cultures dancing around each other', only I would accept it gladly - with
the obvious caveat that we dance within the tent of a common set of values
(mostly universal, as in human rights and democratic concepts), and a common
set of overarching institutions (parliamentary government, the crown, the
rule of law).
Only a few extremists - and their racist counterparts - think that multiculturalism
means separation: group rights as sovereign rights. I am a pluralist. We all
have different identities, often expressed in different circumstances. Intermarraige
is growing healthily. I simply do not recognise Britain as disintegrating.
There are lots of things wrong with the consumer society predominating over
old ideas of public service and mutual responsibility. But these are all too
solid flesh, alas. No disintegration.
To me variety is the spice of life. And we are secure enough in our Britishness
and values not just to tolerate but to enjoy variety. You think I am complacent;
perhaps a little. I think you are feeding a press panic; perhaps a little.
We will meet again, I am sure.
Bernard