Race, Identity and Belonging - fresh perspectives from Soundings

Guy Aitchison on Race, Identity and Belonging introduced by George Shire (with contributions from Bilkis Malek, Ejos Ubiribo, Paul Gilroy, Patrick Wright, Roshi Naidoo, Tariq Modood, Zygmunt Bauman, Nira Yuval-Davis, Amir Saee and Farhad Dalal).

(Soundings 2008, Race, Identity and Belonging, 138pp)

This collection of recent essays challenges dominant assumptions on race and identity in modern Britain.

In recent years it has become fashionable to declare that multiculturalism is dead. If there was ever a turning point in public debate it came with the "race riots" in Northern cities in 2001 and the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't long before critics from both left and right were rushing to denounce multiculturalism as a failed experiment which had permitted the seeds of fundamentalism to grow and encouraged segregation, animosity and mutual misunderstanding. The London bombings of 2005 put the last nail in the coffin of multiculturalism and the relaxed pluralist Britain of the 90s was no more. Or so we're told.

The "death-of-multiculturalism" narrative is recycled so often in various forms by media commentators and vote-hungry politicians that it has become something of a cliché. The BBC's "White Season" is the latest contribution. Its recent revisionist documentary on Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech had the aim of being "provocative" but in reality conformed to the same narrative, implying Powell was right to predict mass immigration would lead to division and violence (other documentaries in the series apparently display the same blinkeredness). When an idea enjoys this level of acceptance it's important to challenge it; and that's exactly what the contributors to Race, Identity and Belonging aim to do.

The book brings together a collection of recent brief essays on race and identity in modern Britain published in the quarterly journal, Soundings. Topics range broadly; from institutional racism and cosmopolitanism, to English identity, melancholia and Black youth crime; but what all share is a willingness to deconstruct and challenge the lazy narratives we fall into when discussing these topics.

<!--more-->Paul Gilroy makes a powerful case that our current anxieties over heritage and identity are less a response to intrusive and disruptive immigration, Powell's "alien wedge", than the product of neo-liberalism and our own particular historical circumstances. The causes lie in "de-industrialisation and de -colonisation, in increased inequality and insecurity, in privatisation, and in the regressive modernisation" begun under the Conservatives and enthusiastically continued by New Labour. Immigrants and asylum seekers have been thrown into these forces and held responsible for them. It's no accident that the working-class whites treated like anthropological curiosities by BBC interviewers express the same worries and concerns you'd expect to hear from Blacks and Asians in the same economic position. Gilroy warns against a retreat to post-imperial "melancholia" which makes sense of Britain's "perennial organic crisis" purely in racial and national terms and assigns to the British the role of victims in their own colonial history. He finds hope in the spontaneous and unappreciated emergence of "conviviality" in public life. In articulating their strongest desires for freedom and relief from Guantanomo Bay, he tells us, released British Muslims told interviewers that what they really craved was a packet of Highland Shortbread Biscuits! In such ways conviviality defies fixed and simplistic cultural distinctions.

Other essays in the collection offer a similar rebuke to easy "clash of culture" narratives. Tariq Modood offers an understanding of political multiculturalism as the embodiment of three ideas: Equality, Multi and Integration. While Equality expresses the idea that minority groups should not be relegated to the private sphere but play a role in the structuring and definition of public space, Multi involves recognition that these groups do not represent a dualistic black/white but a plurality of ethnicities of different socio-economic classes. The Integration he favours does not mean a return to the one-way assimilation policies of the 60s, where "they" must become sufficiently like "us" to become British. Instead he favours an interactive idea of integration that involves continually "rethinking what it means to belong to this society, to be part of this country, to be British." Modood shares Gilroy's concern that to try to "fix" culture to arrive at a settled national self-understanding risks creating a static identity, a mere "specimen behind glass". Do our politicians understand this? Brown's proposals for a Museum of Britishness and a national statement of values don't offer much hope.

In trying to "fix" Britishness, Brown surely has one eye on resurgent English nationalism and accompanying demands for political recognition; themes explored by Patrick Wright in his essay on the life and work of G.K Chesterton. Wright opens with Chesterton's famous lines: "Smile us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget. For we are the people of England, that have never spoken yet." Although written over one hundred years ago, for many, including members of UKIP, the Countryside Alliance and the Campaign for an English Parliament, these words still capture an important truth about the English and their relationship with an over-bearing British state. For Wright, it is this defensive posture that has given Chesterton's Englishness a persistence that Orwell's invocations of smoky towns and bicycling maids lacks:

"It finds its essence in that sense of being opposed to the prevailing trends of the present. It's a perspective that allows even the most well-placed man of the world to imagine himself a member of an endangered aboriginal minority: a freedom fighter striking out against "alien" values and the infernal works of a usurping state."

Chesterton's "secret people" were real ale drinking Anglo-Saxon men, "slow but steadfast, unschooled but instinctively wise." He took issue with the imperial cosmopolitanism of Kipling as well as the joyless and meddlesome Fabians and their campaign against alcohol. But although we might feel attracted to this attempt to dissociate England from the organisational efficiency of the British state, warns Wright, Chesterton's remains a "thoroughly defensive definition of Englishness." His "secret" England polarises the past from the present and produces a "kippered England in which the very thought of difference or change is instantly identified with degeneration, corruption and death."

Like many of the better essays in the collection, Wright's challenges the reader to think about the appropriate way to understand identity and change in an age of global mobility and transnational identities. Zygmunt Bauman and Nira Yuval-Davis warn of the perils of a now trendy "cosmopolitan" politics that tries and fails to transcend place but is only available to an elite few. A dialogue between Ejos Ubiribo and young black men on their experiences of gun crime suggests that social and material deprivation, rather than Blair's "cultural" diagnosis, explains the current crisis.

The ten essays in this collection are brief and easily digested at around ten to twenty pages long. Together they provide a much needed corrective to the prevailing scepticism that a pluralistic, tolerant and democratic British society is possible.

This article is published by , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

Patrick Harris (not verified)
14 March 2008 - 4:25pm

My comments are confined to a phrase that includes the words gun and jumped. The implications of mass immigration are starkly and immediately obvious, the long term results are going to take a little, er, longer.

Gareth Young (not verified)
14 March 2008 - 12:28pm

You can read Wright's Last Orders for the English Aborigine here:

Anax (not verified)
18 March 2008 - 8:31am

Are David Cameron and Kelvin MacKenzie English?

Christine Constable (not verified)
16 March 2008 - 11:25am

The whole manifestation of "multiculturalism" as interpreted and practiced by Labour and progressive politics IS totally discredited, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is to deny the terrible and manifest damage of such a mad concept.

How any thinking politician could have believed that the way to obtain social "cohesion" was to racially type every member of our society, then enact all manner of benefits, laws and guidelines that then began to treat sections of the multicultural society in different ways was and is the politics of the madhouse and Livingstone, Blair and Brown are all architects of a highly irresponsible and discredited credo which has caused untold damage to our society.

Multiculturalism has treated with disdain and racism the rights of the indigenous population of England. It has undermined both the Church of England and made a laughing stock of our Christian heritage, fawning instead over the mad rantings of a clutch of (largely) Islamic militants, turning a blind eye to the celebration of Christmas and Easter in state schools, ignoring the absence of assemblies in some "multicultural" schools on the grounds that parents might find it offensive.

Legal aid, social club fundings, and the "rights" industry have been beneficiaries of Labour's demand to "tribalise" society, if any group can demonstrate it is different or "needy" public money will be fast tracked to them, as a result a plethora of dubiously created and managed organisations are not connected to the state life support system, pushing out negative and counterproductive propaganda alleging "bias" "racism" "unfairness" in every aspect of public life, from the disabled, gays, blacks, Muslims, Women, single mothers, drug takers, mentally sick etc etc.

Society, far from being cohesive and sharing a set of common values is now fragmented into hundreds of sub-groups, all desperate to demonstrate how different and unconnected they are to society, because that why they are treated as a "special case" and government funding becomes available.

Labour has been the most divisive party this country has ever had, and any suggestion that "multiculturalism" has been anything than a disaster is to deny the truth.

Any apologist for this failed dogma needs to be seen for what they are, irresponsible.

You can be black, Islamic, Gay, Disabled, a single mum etc but you can still be English. And it is the ENGLISH part of the description which brings the social cohesion and community togetherness, not the other labels which simply seek to divide not unite.

Andy (not verified)
17 March 2008 - 2:28am

“You can be black, Islamic, Gay, Disabled, a single mum etc but you can still be English. And it is the ENGLISH part of the description which brings the social cohesion and community togetherness, not the other labels which simply seek to divide not unite”

Super, writes an essay on how multiculturism is bad for Britain then tells us we can have a multi cultural English and this will unite us

Labour has destroyed Britishness with multi racial multi cultural immigration now Christine Constable wants to destroy the English by making us a multi racial multi cultural identity.

I could live in Africa and be called an African but I would not be accepted as being a member of the Zulu nation. I could live in America and be American but would not be accepted as being an American Indian. So why should Britain be any different. They can be British but they are not English unless they are indistinquishable from the ethnic English and accepted as English by the English.

It is exactly because of this undermining of English identity that there is so much racial tension at present. The English are insecure of who they are and what it means to be English. This insecurity manifests itself in racial tension as we seek to find out who we are to be told by others that our identity isnt an identity at all.

English is not multi racial, is not multi cultural, is not multi lingual. It is not a non identity or a term for politicians to hand out to all and sundrey in an effort to win their party extra votes.

Englishness is not that cheap.

Philip Hosking (not verified)
16 March 2008 - 5:50pm

"You can be black, Islamic, Gay, Disabled, a single mum etc but you can still be English. And it is the ENGLISH part of the description which brings the social cohesion and community togetherness, not the other labels which simply seek to divide not unite"

French, English, Cornish and Russian all brought together by the celebration of their sexual preference.

The Secret Person (not verified)
15 March 2008 - 10:40am

Always nice to get a mention

http://secretperson.wordpress.com

Anax (not verified)
15 March 2008 - 9:53am

This sounds like a rearguard action by the proponents of, and beneficiaries from, multiculturalism. A priesthood rallying to defend its doctrines.

The thing about multiculturalism is that criticising or refuting it won't make it go away. It's entrenched. To get rid of concepts like 'community leaders' or 'vibrant' inner city areas, you need action.

Andy (not verified)
18 March 2008 - 11:29pm

Are David Cameron and Kelvin MacKenzie English?

You would have to ask them. Do they consider themselves English?

I belive Cameron said he was British and refused to go deeper on the subject.

I dont know much about Mr McKenzie.

The only thing to say they are not English is their surnames........so what.

If they were two strangers in a pub you would consider them as English unless they said other wise.

They are indistinguishable from the English.

If you were to enter a room full of ethnic English people who you did not know and they considered you to be ethnic English by your look, how you spoke and your views you would be English, whatever your ancestry.

English is the name given to the people who formed the English nation. Only people accepted as English by the English are English. To allow anyone to be English just because of where they are born or how long they have lived in England erodes English identity until English is a non identity, meaningless worthless and dead.

I could have been born in Japan, I still would not be accepted as Japanese.

What about English that move abroad and still claim to be English. Is location all it takes to be a nationality? Does where you live make you what you are?

Or is it what you think you are? can i think myself an Eskimo and therefore be one?

The above two examples makes ALL national identities non existant...anyone can be anything therefore no one is anyone. No identity exists, you couldnt guess a persons national identity by looks, speech. culture.

Can all Canadians claim to be inuits...no All Australians claim to be aboriginis.....no......therefore why should English be different. Why should blacks orientals etc be classed as English and not just British-Pakistani or British-Jamaican etc

Andy (not verified)
23 March 2008 - 11:57am

If we accept a multi racial English identity then we English lose our identity.

When anyone can claim to be English then English stops identifying a nation. English becomes like British or American or Australian a non identity.

ourkingdom (not verified)
23 March 2008 - 1:02pm

Sorry Andy: All national identities can be multi-racial and most are because a nation is not a racial category. This applies to England and being English even if England does not yet have its own executive power. We have been round this one thoroughly in OurKingdom - see my post on an English Fascist. My own view is that there no point in our publishing this kind of comment even if it is meant without malice. Views?

Andy (not verified)
24 March 2008 - 2:08pm

There is certainly no malice intended. But if we accept that all national identities are multi racial then that nation no longer exists as an identity.

Where do you consider the line drawn between who is and who is not English. Is it purely down to where one is born? There is no such thing as a British identity (as I have stated) anyone can be British, and are all equal as British citizens.

However in a multicultural Britain many people born in England are of varying races and cultures, for some English is still their second language.

A person who considers himself a British Pakistani though born in England would tick this box on the census is in your view now a British Pakistani Englishman.

He can claim to be British, Pakistani and English. I could claim to be British (non identity) and English (now a non identity if i accept your view). He still has his identity as Pakistani which is unavailable to me yet i have been left with two non identities.

Would he accept me as a Pakistani? No...so why should English not be a national identity like Pakistani or Japanese?

Thanks, will go see your link to English facist.

MaryJ (not verified)
25 March 2008 - 3:50am

Has anyone read the UN's recent declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples? Here is a link:

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

It would appear that the UN agrees more with the "English Fascist" than with the good souls of "Our Kingdom." A few of the more problematic sections of the declaration:

Article 2

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. (Note: "Positive discrimination" in favor of non-indigenous people in England/Britain in the matter of jobs, education, housing etc. would seem to be a blatant violation of this article.)

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Note: Depriving indigenous peoples of their right to decide who and who doesn't get to settle on their historical lands would appear to be a blatant violation of this provision.)

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. (Note: Numerous "progressive" initiatives to erase the religious traditions of the native culture -- such as forbidding the manifestations of the Christmas season in public life -- would appear to be in violation of this article.)

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality. (Note: Denying indigenous British or English peoples the right to call themselves by their historical designation would seem to be a severe violation of this provision.)

Article 7

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples (italics mine) and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group. (Note: Toleration or establishment of "no-go" areas for indigenous English people would appear to be in violation of this article. Denying that indigenous British/Englsih people are a "distinct" people would also seem to be a blatant violation of this article.)

Now someone explain to me why the provisions quoted above doesn't reply to the indigenes of the British Isles. And no, the same old "progressive" hypocritical pronouncement of "the rules for 'white people' are different", ain't gonna cut it.

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options