You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘multiculturalism’ tag.
Tuesday, 26 July (4.45pm) – Sunday, 31 July (noon)
Learning to live in a multicultural world
Diaspora and peacemaking in Europe
Have a look at the programme – I spent a few days at Caux last year and loved it. Loads of people (including young interns) from all around Europe in a huge palace hotel just above Montreux on Lake Geneva.
Lectures, networking, panels, discussion groups, training – along with leisurely meals on the sunny terrace, challenging speakers and a spot of washing up duty to keep the costs down (92 Swiss francs per person per night, 55 for students).
I’m extra happy to be going with my 22 year old daughter this year – I can’t think of a better companion.
With the recent election result from Finland and the face-covering ban in France, I’m keen to meet other Europeans and look at migration, identity, religion and European history in all its complexity.
Anyone else coming?
Searchlight Educational Trust’s Fear and Hope report is now online. There’s quite a lot of it so a good read will have to wait.
A quick look at the ‘tribes’ (see previous post and another on cultural confidence) shows that the Cultural Integrationists of the pre-publicity material has been renamed as the Culturally Concerned.
I seem to be mainly a Confident Multiculturalist (8% of the population) although I hope I’m not as smug as this sounds . . .
Most likely to be graduates or post graduates, these people are predominantly professionals and managers. They are more prevalent in London and the South East, and among people who identify with Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green. Outgoing, social and happy with their lives, they are confident about their own, as well as their country’s future, and think Britain has benefitted from immigration.
. . . but with a dash of Culturally Concerned (24% of the population) . . .
Generally older and more prosperous than other groups, many are (or have been) professionals and managers. They are more likely to view immigration as a cultural issue with concerns about the impact of immigration on national identity and about immigrants’ willingness to integrate. This group forms the largest segment of those identifying with the Conservative Party.
. . . because immigration is, amongst other things, a cultural issue. How well people are welcomed and encouraged to get involved in local life – and how individual and community identities evolve – has long been something I’m concerned with and working to improve.
I skipped – as you do – to the last page to see that Searchlight will be
establishing a project to explore, understand and tackle the rise of right-wing nationalism and extremism in Britain and Western Europe.
Good! Maybe we’ll be able to link them up with our emerging network of European grassroots groups which are building trust between communities. And even persuade them to extend their project to other parts of Europe beyond the West.
It’s been a challenging weekend for multiculturalism – and barely a mention of David Cameron or Angela Merkel.
Harry Eyres' Slow Lane is often a treat
Harry Eyres’ Slow Lane in the FT Weekend wonders whether our current idea of culture isn’t much more than a collection of behaviours, rather than something to aspire to.
You can have a culture of not swiping your Oyster card on a bendy bus, or driving at 10 miles an hour over the speed limit on motorways.
He suggests multiculturalism from the inside – understanding our own individual multi-culture – and gives a rough guide to the Western cultural canon as a start.
. . the Greeks, the ethical profundities of the Old and New Testaments, Roman civilisation and law, the Renaissance and the rise of science, the Enlightenment and the Romantic rebellion, Freud’s insights into the power of the unconscious and so on.
I’m a Scot who’s lived and worked in Calcutta and Papua New Guinea. I’ve glimpsed wisdom in different religious and philosophical traditions. I’ve worked locally alongside people with African roots for decades. So my addendum would include colonialism and subsequent trading patterns, world faiths, feminism and a Celtic/Highland take on Christianity and the natural world. We all have our own patchwork of experiences.
I wonder to what extent we receive or choose our own multi-culture or multiple identities? Some of us have more choice than others – and some ‘own’ our identities more than others, as I argued recently.
Eyres recalls a British Academy Forum last year on multicultural London. In Pat Thane’s short report, well worth a read, Rob Berkeley (Runnymede Trust) concludes that London succeeds at being ‘the world in one city’ – which won us the 2012 Olympic bid.
We are creating the world in one city and all the inequalities of the world in one city. I want to start in a hopeful place about those interactions and things that we could create differently in London, to challenge the rest of the world about some of the ethnic conflict that still occurs.
He seems to be saying, ‘as a world city, we don’t want simply to replicate the injustice and conflict of the world, we want London to be a force for good, showing how a fairer world can work’.
Tomorrow Searchlight releases its Fear and Hope report – a study of attitudes to immigration, identity and multiculturalism (co-written by Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate, with a foreward by Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham & Rainham). Nick has summarised the findings for the Guardian today.
The survey of 5,000 people, the largest of its kind ever conducted, is stark, brutal and unequivocal.
Some 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons now believe all immigration into the UK should be stopped permanently, or at least until the UK’s economic situation improves.
Meanwhile, 52% of Britons agree with the proposition “Muslims create problems in the UK” . . . In addition, 48% of Britons say they would consider supporting a new far right-wing party, if it shunned violence and fascist imagery.
London’s population may, on the whole, live well with its differences, but in some places – in London and across the UK – attitudes to immigration are tied strongly to economic and social security:
The means test appears to have a greater impact upon attitudes towards integration and identity than the cricket test.
Security of identity (and, I would say, of multiple identity) is a key factor, too.
A new politics of identity, culture, and nation has grown out of the politics of race and immigration, and is increasingly the opinion driver in modern British politics. There are now in effect six “identity tribes” in our society. These are: confident multiculturalists (8% of the population); mainstream liberals (16%); identity ambivalents (28%); cultural integrationists (24%); latent hostiles (10%); and active enmity (13%).
The cherished “middle ground” of British politics is occupied by two of these groups; the cultural integrationists, motivated by authority and order; and identity ambivalents, who are concerned about their economic security and social change. Together they make up 52% of the population.
Migration to the UK and opportunities to welcome or oppose multicultural life here depend on what is happening elsewhere. People come as refugees (seeking safety), students (seeking high quality education) and economic migrants (for better paid work).
Enda Kenny, the incoming Irish taoiseach, has said that he doesn’t want the economic crisis to send another generation away to start a new life abroad – in Sydney, Brisbane and Vancouver. British Libyans have said how happy they would be if they could go back to their home country and help rebuild it.
London might not be a world in one city if it weren’t for trouble elsewhere; a more equitable world might deprive London of its special multicultural status but ensure that people were thriving where they wanted to thrive. We would choose to travel and live in other parts of the world on the basis of a level playing field.
Harry Eyres asks us to discover our own value-based multicultural heritage; Richard Berkeley wants London to be a ‘beacon’ for the rest of the world; Nick Lowles wants to oppose political extremism by bringing communities together. Yes, yes and yes.
Security of identity and economic security seem to be key. In addition to working towards a fairer world, how can British culture itself evolve and change without taking away the security of any group – whether that’s Muslims, the white working-class, rural communities or the urban multiculturalists?
Faith Matters held a panel/Q&A event a couple of months ago in London (lovely venue – Royal Commonwealth Society), with Christina Patterson, columnist at the Independent; Jonathan Arkush, barrister and Board of Deputies of British Jews senior vice president; & Muhammad Abdul Bari, former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain as panellists.
I was leaving for Scotland that evening, but stopped off on the way. I missed the presentations but gathered the main focus of the evening was an article written by Christina Patterson. Fiery discussion ensued with views about faith schools, ghettos & parallel living, tolerance, free speech, inter-marriage, homophobia, anti-Semitism, censorship, Islamophobia, female genital mutilation – and just about everything else on the religion v secularism list – aired through radio mikes. The room wasn’t full; about half asked questions, and most were answered.
Having chaired multifaith round table gatherings myself, I know it’s possible to bring people of very different (and strong) views, beliefs and practices together and for it not to end in tears. We can get to understand each other a bit better, whether we change our minds about anything or not. There were no tears that night, but sensitivities on all sides were clearly trampled on. Afterwards, participants gathered in like-minded groups rather than mixing, which seemed like a missed opportunity. I heard the phrase “bigoted toe-rag” thrown about.
So, a bit too grandstandy and playgroundish for me, although a few participants obviously enjoyed themselves. Plus points were meeting a young woman involved in bringing people together through the arts – good stuff – and having a word with Dr Abdul Bari (Muslim Council of Britain) about European networks.
One contributor said that, given the choice, they would ban both faith and private schools in favour of state education, which would include lessons on the world faiths. I’ve heard similar views before: children should be given the choice of which religious tradition to follow and whether to follow one at all.
If it were food rather than religion (not that you can separate even these two), I suppose each school would give them a bit of veggy, a bit of fast food, a bit of organic, a bit of meat-&-2-veg, plenty of information about them all and then ask them to choose.
Three ideas pop into my mind.
- No school is “neutral” and children will pick up the values of any educational institution they find themselves in – just as they are influenced by their family. They may reject what they inherit at some stage (and most of us, as adults living in a free society, leave behind some of the values and identity we’ve inherited), but children can’t help but absorb the values their lives are directed by.
- By keeping religious (& non-religious) tradition out of children’s lives except through formal learning, we could be depriving them of a part of their identity, or, even worse, asking them to choose one – who am I? This feels like too much responsibility, too much of a burden for a child.
- People who reject value-led schooling (religious, Steiner, Montessori) in favour of a monopoly of state-run education put far more trust in the state than I do.
There was also a mention of Britain changing from a monocultural country to a multicultural one – with consequent difficulties. It was apparently much easier when there was a monoculture.
For my money, I’ve never come across a monoculture, even within my own family. There are cultural differences between England & Scotland, between Glasgow & Edinburgh and between the New Town & Morningside. There are differences all around and always have been. How we respond to people being different is the interesting part – do we all need to be the same in order to get along? Are there limits to difference, and if so, what are they? Teasing out these kinds of issues is part of the public conversation, through the media and the democratic process, to determine public policies which support us all to live our lives to the full.
A flurry of press reports and comments in response to the French vote to ban the wearing of face-coverings in public:
Prospect Magazine: Why France is banning the veil
New Humanist: France moves closer to burqa ban
BBC’s Gavin Hewitt: Criminalising women behind the veil
The vote was the lead front page story for the Daily Express, which also claimed that one of their own polls showed that 99% of Britons wanted the UK to follow France’s lead and quoting the UK Independence Party.
Germany’s Stern magazine’s cover story this week is on Women in Islam.
If you read German, the paper by Annemarie Sancar at Caux is now posted on the conference’s website, and a podcast interview in French.
Good to meet Michael Smith of the UK Initiatives of Change this evening at the Global Tolerance FaithClimateConnect virtual summit.
Hot on the heels of an email from Angela & Nina (IoC Switzerland) with more details of the “Learning to Live in a Multicultural World” conference in the Alps 2nd – 7th July this year.
Still wondering how Moral Rearmament got to be Initiatives of Change, but I’ll go with the (highly ambitious) kind of thing Angela & Nina are planning – and who can resist an international summer in the alps?
Not a great turnout for SIOE in Harrow
Brrrr – cold in Harrow this afternoon. I spotted the new mosque (scaffolding still around the minaret) at about the same time as I noticed huge numbers of police in hi-visibility jackets, others on horseback and about 30 police vans surrounding the bleak carpark on the opposite side of the road.
It was harder to spot the demonstrators. I counted about 13 of them, just enough to hold up a long banner STOP ISLAMISATION OF EUROPE. They were surrounded by police and one man seemed to be speaking to them via a megaphone.
Happily I bumped into a few friends from Three Faiths Forum and the London Jewish Forum amongst the 200+ counter-demonstrators. I heard Harrow Central Mosque say that SIOE had been invited to the Mosque to discuss their concerns, but that they had declined. Canon Giles Fraser (Church of England) had earlier joined people from other faith traditions, the British Humanist Association and local political leaders to emphasise the importance of protecting freedom of worship.
Harrow Central Mosque
SOIE had encouraged Belgians, Serbs, Papua New Guineans and others to display their flags. I saw none of these (SIOE was banned from demonstrating in Brussels on the 9/11 anniversary this year).
Demonstrators were also urged to refrain from ‘racist chants’ and ‘nazi salutes’ – ‘remarks such as “deport all Muslims” will NOT be permitted’. These guidelines rather give the game away as to what SIOE is all about. They appear to be trying to form a Europe-wide network.
Just as well that those who value freedom of expression and worship and who promote an equitable way of living in Europe are also pretty good at networking.
How we live well together, in spite of our differences, is bound to be the topic of a public conversation for some time. We need to find ways of approaching it in ways that reduce anxiety and enrich our understanding.
A ray of sunshine for anyone bothered about the Swiss referendum vote yesterday to ban the building of minarets: Initiatives of Change (Switzerland) is hosting a conference this summer (IoC was behind the film The Imam and the Pastor).
Learning to Live in a Multicultural World Fundamental rights and multiculturalism in Europe Friday 2 July – Wednesday 7 July 2010 at their conference centre in Caux, Switzerland. The cost is amazingly low and even cheaper for 16-23 year olds.
Angela and Nina, who were part of the CEJI course, are involved in organising the conference – so expect a lively and challenging weekend . .
The BBC’s Gavin Hewitt has touched on one or two issues that have come up at the CEJI course – how different do we want to be from each other? How similar do we want or need to be? How important is a shared language, or an agreed commitment to universal human rights?
Developments such as the upcoming vote in Switzerland on minarets and citizenship tests (UK) or training (parts of Belgium) seem to be on the rise.
One exercise in our training today involved putting togther a timeline of faith traditions/value systems and I was surprised to find something called laïcité in amongst Judaism and the Baha’i faith. Based on a strong commitment to the separation of religion and the state, it is popular in France (where it originated) and in Turkey.
Being in the company of people from Holland, Austria, Romania, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain and Belgium makes for wide-ranging conversations and a steep learning curve for me, but a fascinating one. And I like finding philosophy monthlies in the newsagents here, next to the gardening, computer and lifestyle mags.
