Multiculturalism As Lived Experience Enriches Our Lives. But Multiculturalism As A Political Ideology Has Helped Create A Tribal Britain With No Political Or Moral Centre. (Kenan Malik, The Times ,16th. July, 2005).

Multiculturalism as lived experience enriches our lives. But multiculturalism as a political ideology has helped create a tribal Britain with no political or moral centre. (Kenan Malik, The Times ,16th. July, 2005).

Discuss.

More and more people “live in an environment that transcends national borders” and there is a very apparent “growing international environment” (Milich and Peck, 1998, pg vii). On an international scale, as well as in Britain, there has been an increase in immigration. Modern communication devices such as the telephone or internet have allowed people to continue practicing multiculturalism and maintain a sense of identity through their roots. Multiculturalism is a political doctrine or ideology which “stresses the importance of cultural belonging and legitimises the desire to maintain difference” (Bhargava, Bagchi and Sudarshan, 1999, pg 1).

Multiculturalism is a very current issue in Britain today with an ever increasing migrant population. Some of the British public, analytic philosophers and fundamentalists view it as an attack on “national interest or doctrinal purity”. These beliefs are held for a variety of reasons, some feel their way of life or their culture is superior to others. However some feel a need to protect вЂ?British-ness’ and do not want it вЂ?diluted’ with other cultures (Goldberg, 1994, pg 381). Multiculturalism seems threatening for people who want a homogeneous society (Milich and Peck, 1998, page xii). This essay attempts to explore the dangers of multiculturalism, if any, and rationally analyse these arguments.

One of the main arguments presented opposing multiculturalism, is that nowadays, “identification with locality, tribe, family or religion” are trampled as “new social and cultural relations exist” (Baldwin, Longhurst, McCracken, Ogborn and Smith, 2000, pg 158). Indeed in Britain today there is a sense that national identity has been lost due to an influx of immigrants. However “identity [is] not simply based on country of origin” and it is “dependant on relationships with others and a sense of location” (Bhabha, 1994, pg 185). It is argued that the claim - loss of British national identity - is false and the concept of identity itself is now in debate.

According to Goldberg, (1994, pg 381) “identity is a reflexive relation, a relation of myself to myself, but it can be a mediated relation: I relate myself through my interaction with others and with the world”. He goes on to argue that “individuals don’t find their identity in cultural identification alone” and that culture is merely a component of identity. Individuals therefore are able to let national identity determine their own identity to the extent they want as it is something relative to the individual.

Hall (1992) developed three concepts of identity. The first, Enlightenment, is where an individual’s identity unfolds around them during their life and is therefore prevalent since birth. The second, Sociological, is where identity is formed in relation to other people/the individual’s society and therefore identity is something which changes over time. The third concept of identity is Post-modern. This is the view that individuals do not have a sense of fixed identity. Identity in society nowadays has become �dislocated’ (Baldwin et al., 2000, pg 348).

Anderson (2001) argued that there are “imagined communities” and that the sense of a country and a culture going hand in hand was no longer true. He maintained that geographical boundaries do not separate the different ways of life between people. If this were true then the idea of sub-cultures would be rejected, whilst ignoring the problem of “internal social divisions” within communities. According to Anderson, national identity is as much built on the “exclusion of people who do not fit and the drawing of boundaries, as on the imagining of a community and the territory where they can live together” (Baldwin et al., 2000, pg 159).

Baldwin et al. (2000) argue that “nations are projects which can never be fully achieved” as they are always changing and never have fixed values. However “community is a cultural one, and it defines nations, national identities and territories” (pg 159). They go on to claim that English/British national identity can be preserved. A view which is echoed by Goldberg, “pure forms of single cultures can survive in spite of general mixing” (1994, pg 383). Baldwin et al. (2000) describe this preservation by giving the example of how not all вЂ?English’ citizens know of/ have been to all of the historical places and landmarks in England, yet they feel a tie to them and a sense of pride. Stephen Daniels (1993) talks of “symbolic landscapes of national identity”. Individuals have been able to experience these landmarks through representations which are produced in various forms and circulate widely (pg 162).

The view is then raised that if English culture can be preserved in this way then surely it can be passed on to different generations and ultimately to individuals belonging to different cultural groups in England. However another question is raised from that view which is expressed by Goldberg (1994, pg 377), he asks “is a member of a minority required to adopt the corresponding identity?”. In other words, should the individuals belonging to different cultural groups living in Britain be forced to assimilate to British values, laws and customs?

The counter claim of this is presented in Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy (1999, pg 1) where Bhargava et al. ask whether every culture should be publicly recognised. If the answer is no, then which cultures should be? They also question what a public recognition of a culture would mean. Would it lead to the use of different languages in parliament? Would the different cultural groups receive funding for their different faith/language schools? Does it imply “group specific citizenship rights”? Would each different cultural group have laws which applied solely to its members? and finally, Would there be a need for internal boundaries?

All of the questions raised above by Bhargava et al. challenge British law or ask for it to be changed in