The Multicultural Paradox Tim R. McDonald, Hamline University Rev/August 2007

Britain, through experiences stemming from the time of her Empire, has developed models of multiculturalism that inhibit the ability of communities to recognize and respond to radicalized movements among Muslim populations. The Multicultural Paradox is the exaggeration of minority affirmation to a point where the idea works against its own ideals of fostering open minds and tolerance. The Paradox is a separate development from British multiculturalism, one that takes its goals of cultural recognition and enrichment to extremes. It abhors assimilation as oppressive, trumpeting “diversity” as the medium towards a socially just society. An emphasis on tolerance and respect of minority groups, though well intentioned, potentially undermines intended ideals of community cohesion by inhibiting traditional methods for cultural exchange and adaptation. Nonetheless, urban London and its unique affirmation of minority rights provide an opportunity to explore alternative models for reconstructing the way Britons look at difference. This essay calls for assimilation, and outlines three major factors that prevented its nascent: growth and regional concentration of ethnic and religious minorities, a reality of difference between cultural groups, and a moral reluctance and culture of relativism throughout the country.

*** London’s Calling Western identity is in a process of definitive change. As Muslim communities continue to grow and non-Muslim, white, secular and Christian demographics decline, an increased pressure will be placed on social and community cohesion in Western states. Reactions to foreign policy and the publication of offensive books and cartoons have provided a glimpse into just one small part of the future of a divided society. As demographics shift, the question arises whether these changes will become gradually more peaceful, or increasingly violent. Without a holistic change in political and social outlook, we will be faced with the latter. London’s calling, or to state differently, the calling of London, is to develop a viable EnglishMuslim identity that will engage multicultural reformation and place England as a bulwark against radicalism in Western Europe. The root of this challenge involves in part Britain’s growth as a multicultural society. Models of multiculturalism have developed in recent decades that inhibit the ability of communities to recognize and respond to radicalized movements among Muslim populations. Current conceptions of the give and take among cultural and religious groups must be seriously examined to assess their effect on national identity and how the balance between integration and assimilation will play out over time. An emphasis on tolerance and respect of minority groups, though well intentioned, potentially undermines intended ideals of community cohesion by inhibiting traditional methods for integration. Nonetheless, urban London and its unique affirmation of minority rights provide an opportunity to explore alternative models for reconstructing the way Britons look at difference. -1-

The ingredients are there: Muslim and non-Muslim interfaith and intercultural organizations, dialogue and interaction, a capable economy, open minds, and a societal awareness. Britain is one of the world’s healthiest democracies, historically and in present times, having carried the fate of the Western world on its shoulders repeatedly throughout the 20th century. There are though, significant hurdles, as these very virtues are what threaten to pull the capitol under. There is a need for more restrictive conceptions of a multicultural society that respect cultural and religious diversity but assert a core national identity and creed. With the proper steps, greater London can provide these models. The Challenge of British Multiculturalism The concept of multiculturalism is largely a Western construct, developed in the liberation movements of the mid to late twentieth century. In Britain its principles have been perpetuated through an increase of inward migration, sympathies toward the cultural demands of minority groups, movement towards an abstract sense of diversity. Despite its origins in the ideals of empowerment and enrichment, multiculturalism has evolved in such a way to become, in the words of Samuel Huntington, “an anti-Western ideology” (171). The Multicultural Paradox, the dichotomy between theory and practice, is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of our time. The Multicultural Paradox is the exaggeration of minority affirmation to a point where it works against its own ideals of fostering open minds and tolerance. The Paradox is a separate development from British multiculturalism, one that takes its goals of cultural recognition and enrichment to extremes. The Paradox abhors assimilation as oppressive, trumpeting “diversity” as the medium towards a socially just society. In doing so, its subject is prevented from recognizing the practical consequences of a fervent multiculturalism put into practice. It is not a persuasion shared by the whole of society; in fact many people openly reject calls for what they see as artificially constructed cultural equality. These people are, arguably, the silent majority. Multiculturalism is not a right of the minority, but a value of cultural diversity held by all of society. One of the first casualties of an imposed multicultural egalitarianism is realism, and this is the legacy of the Multicultural Paradox. As pluralism is leveraged in an attempt to equalize any and all differences, it voids a sense of national center and Britain’s strength and vitality as a collective is greatly diminished. The ideals of cultural enrichment are undercut as communities are driven to division and conflict. Wolfe sees this progressive form of multicultural theory as “…redefine(ing) citizenship to the point where it would not be worth much of anything” (26). Multicultural models differ significantly across Western Europe, with Britain subscribing to neither pole of colorblindness and full affirmative action. Foremost there is an understanding that the country is comprised of many races, ethnicities, religions, and other characteristics that provide distinct individual and group identities. Multiculturalists argue that traditional white, Christian norms of British identity marginalize and oppress ethnic and religious minorities. In order for there to be true social justice, for all people to be equal and to excel in society, they need to be freed from under the thumb of these pressures. Thus there has developed two facets of the movement; one for recognition and elevation of cultural variations, and a second, more elementary version, that simply attempts to tear down the majority. Scholars and public figures alike have found it difficult to criticize or push back against the momentum of the multicultural movement. This is because the same sentiments that have

-2-

increased tolerance and acceptance have lead to the construction of taboos that effectively silence dissent. As a result the majority is confronted with self-doubt and a reluctance to assert the merits of its own culture—that is if it can recognize them. In the search for a more fair society, writes the Economist Newspaper, the concept of national identity has seemed either irrelevant or unhelpful (Bagehot). The left has become uncomfortable with perceptions of superiority for majority cultural norms, as well as an overlapping of civic duties and nationalism. It is commonplace today to hear, when talk turns to values either in a school, neighborhood, or business, “whose values?” Quite commonly this is meant to be accusatory, to carry connotations of racism, ethno-centrism, and chauvinistic nationalism. All too often, it is used to stifle debate. Purist notions of multiculturalism encourage people to see themselves as fundamentally different, and separate, instead of sharing a common identity with their neighbors. Multiculturalists argue that this cultural affirmation is ideal for justice, and that society is at its strongest when all people are recognized for who they are and able to participate fully. Concepts like the melting pot are shunned. Multiculturalists elect instead to combine perspectives of civic pride into analogies such as “mosaic,” or “tossed salad.” Today the British government is challenged with questions that are symptomatic of the influence of the Paradox. To what extent is a liberal society obliged to accept and even endorse attitudes and behaviors that are hostile to it? Is it not reasonable to demand that members of a minority assimilate with the majority? The British people must openly and honestly engage in this dialogue, as it will ultimately determine the path ahead. The Dividing of a Nation | sleepwalking into segregation Though multiculturalism may have once been a useful tool for introducing immigrants to a homogenous Britain, it is quickly becoming dated. As Trevor Phillips, a Labour MP and head of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights commented in 2004, the British model “makes a fetish of difference instead of encouraging minorities to be truly British” (Modood). Modern day struggles with assimilation, national identity, cohesion, terrorism, and radicalism bring credence to the idea that multiculturalism is no longer capable of negotiating between the West’s growing Muslim minority and a secular, liberal-democratic, non-Muslim majority. For the second, third, and now fourth generations of British Muslims, the question of identity has been paramount. Multiculturalism says that each of these young people should be exposed to their heritage and culture, embrace the differences, and bring them into the mainstream of British society. This is a noble goal, though the Paradox adds qualification that in turn they should not be indoctrinated with nationalism, or taught to be proud of the powerful history of Britain. Said a young secondary school teacher from Tower Hamlets in consultation for this essay, “When I first stepped into the classroom I realized that it (the national curriculum) does not serve these students (majority Bangladeshi Muslim) at all—how am I going to teach them lessons about the conquests of Britain?” His comment represents a difficulty that many teachers are finding themselves facing; how can a national history of white men and Protestantism be taught to the children of immigrants? His response, to ignore the national curriculum and teach instead to the interests of the students, was done in good faith but performed a great disservice to the children and their country. What if all teachers performed this way? The students may get a teaching of history personalized to their biases, but will lack most basically an appreciation of their nation’s past.

-3-

Without a sense of patriotism rooted in the knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of forebears, a community looses one of its most fundamental and critical elements: a sense of self. As the Muslim minority continues to grow, Britain will see a gradual increase in pressure on its multicultural infrastructures. With the proper connections in place, this tension will slowly work itself toward assimilation and cohesion. If left unchecked fault lines may continue to form and radicalization and conflict will increase. Marginalized sections of society will risk having their subordinate status cemented. The possibility for increased segregation is real, and Britain is “sleepwalking” into it, to use the words of Trevor Phillips, because the Paradox diverts attention from this reality of a growing national divide. Activists on the left are beginning to recognize it as well, and as the anti-racist Kenan Malik has written, “Multiculturalism has helped to segregate communities far more effectively than racism” (Malik). A Hurdle, a Mountain, and a Valley To talk of a common British identity is not to advocate that blind adherence must necessarily overwhelm cultural autonomy. Instead it should be understood that basic levels of assimilation are a natural byproduct of healthy integration, and evidence that immigrant groups are fitting in with their host society. There is though a widely held assumption in Britain that British Muslims are “inassimilable,” albeit many do not want to admit it. This ignores though great progresses that have been made to date, and an impressive Muslim middle class that is the envy of Europe. Nonetheless there are difficulties, and the following three major factors have contributed to the lack of assimilation. Growth and Regional Concentration The Muslim minority in Britain is similar in size to Germany (3 percent to 4 percent respectively), and small in comparison to France, where some estimates reach above 10 percent. The regional concentration of British Muslims in ethnic enclaves in cities and neighborhoods directly impacts their need (or desire) to acclimate with the rest of the country. The vast majority of Britain’s Muslims reside in England, concentrated in urban sections of the country including London (607,000), Birmingham (192,000), Greater Manchester (125,219), and the BradfordLeeds area (150,000). Of the twenty authorities with the highest proportions of Muslims, London boroughs account for ten. At over 36 percent Tower Hamlets in the East End has the highest percentage of Muslims in one area. It contains nearly a quarter of the Bangladesh population in the United Kingdom. Urban London is under-recognized as an example for the possibility of peace and prosperity between communities. People of all faiths live, work, and engage in dialogue together, made easier by their close proximity, comparatively higher levels of education and employment opportunities, and a the cosmopolitan atmosphere of an international city. As one travels into the suburbs, the prevalence of such interdependence begins to diminish. Further into the north in the industrial areas of Birmingham and Manchester, unemployment and achievement gaps in education and employment become much more pronounced. Wherever high concentrations of ethnic minority Muslims are found, radicalism and extremism become more common. Youth grow up disconnected from their country, socially and economically. They turn to a romanticized image of ancestral cultures and develop trans-

-4-

national identities with their country of origin or a faction of the ummah. Confusion over dual loyalties provides a perfect opportunity for the influence of anti-Western rhetoric to take hold. A Reality of Difference There is a dichotomy between traditional British identities and a diverse, flourishing, Muslim alternative. The former is formulated around a secular democracy with Christian heritage. It is primarily white and Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Celtic, signified in part at the institutional level by the Church of England and socially by a progressive secularism. The latter is ethnically diverse, representing multiple cultures under varying interpretations of a single faith. While one group looks to limit religion in the public square, the other struggles with doctrine that sees the two as intertwined. As one exercises their right to wear religious garb, the other is put off by a sense of offense. While one calls for conformity, the other openly bucks demands on cultural and religious identity. Such reality of difference must be recognized and understood. The difference posed by religion is sweeping, though it is still only one piece to a larger puzzle. Each Islamic sect brings with it unique practices and norms, compounded by ethnic, racial, and linguistic individualities. Conflicts with traditional British society have been diverse as well. Recent examples of cultural intersections are represented by the availability of Halal meals at school and work, the participation of Muslim girls in gym classes and swimming, the availability of places to pray during the day, what history is taught in secondary schools and how, the rise of Sharia-compliant banking, the role of women in work and society, the wearing of the hijab and jilbab in public facilities, and the ability of Muslims to cope and adapt to a national drinking culture. Most of these issues have been solved with relatively little confrontation, but that is not always the case. Certain macro events over recent decades have enabled us to see exactly what it means to have a reality of difference, placing a magnifying glass over the cracks of society and providing a glimpse of what may be to come. The Rushdie affair of the late 1980’s, uproar over publication of the Danish cartoons, and militant opposition to British foreign policies are but a few examples. In times of trial, when some of the most fundamental values of society are targeted, communities have shown to split instead of coming together. British Muslims feel this dissonance, and as a minority have been compelled to stand and assert their autonomy culturally, and in many cases politically, to avoid the pull of undesirable assimilation. There have been increasing calls for affirmative representation and social justice for minority faith groups by organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). These movements, leaning on the pluralistic nature of Britons, push for the permeation of multiculturalism in policy and community relations. These relationships are fundamentally off-balance, placing the burden of sacrifice primarily onto the majority through mandates of accepting and internalizing a minority’s ways. Such a situation may work well in some instances, for example the initial reception of an isolated community of refugees, but is out of place for established, growing, and still largely unassimilated ethnic and religious factions. The ideals of enrichment through interaction with Muslim cultures have, for example, now turned into a struggle on the part of minority leadership to achieve disproportionate power and influence. Legal actions against discrimination (Islamophobia) are common, especially in schools and the work place. But it is important though to keep in mind here the natural limitations of the

-5-

law’s role in instituting equality. While a society puts forth legal efforts for fair and balanced treatment of its citizens, the impact of these policies will be felt differently by different groups of people. All laws favor some and disfavor others. In today’s Britain if one feels ill served by a regulation it must necessarily be discriminatory and therefore illegal. During conversations for this essay there have been strong calls from the center for the negotiation of a new, modernized, “English Muslim” identity. “The process is complicated,” Idris Mears opined in reflection on his time as as director of the Association of Muslim Schools. He commented that, “The goal is to “deculturalize Islam, so that instead of going out there and not fitting in, a child can use his or her faith to adapt.” Abdurraheem Green, a white-Briton and adult convert to Islam, is Youth Director at the London Central Mosque. Agreeing with Mears’ assessment, he confided during a conversation on radicalism that Islam, “needs to be taught as a religion, not a culture.” Dr. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Institute in London has emphasized the teaching of Islam’s contribution to European development, commenting that “they (Muslim youth) do have a history here. The problem with young people is that there is not much experience (outside of the familiar) and no knowledge of this past...they fall too easily to the language of those who want to divide.” Moral Reluctance and a Culture of Relativism Cultural enrichment from minority groups is a virtue, but it is naïve to ignore the differences that do exist. As the minority grows in social and political influence, not all of the byproduct will be positive. It is here that the Multicultural Paradox prevents us from recognizing and addressing these unintended side effects. While multiculturalists work towards a better society, their efforts risk becoming counter-productive. To appreciate cultural diversity is one thing; to ignore the practical realities of a large, unassimilated presence of difference is quite another. Since the end of the Second World War, Britain, like other Western countries, has become progressively more relaxed on, culture, morals, and religion, and arguably ideology. Indeed at times it seems that multiculturalists assume justice is simply whichever policy or action works to the advantage of those who are weaker. The values and customs of Britain’s Judeo-Christian tradition have informed and guided her through times of trial. These are maintained by recognition that there is a political and cultural norm held by the majority. Without such ordinances the country will face a sort of vacuum until a new, stronger, non-self deprecating majority comes to the fore. There has been a troubling increase in a relativism that rejects the necessity of moral order. The post-war growth of Islam directly challenges public neutrality. The presence of dialogue is growing, but still limited. There is a reluctance to claim cultural preeminence on the part of non-Muslim British, and the Multicultural Paradox has taken the idea of recognizing cultural diversity and turned it upside down, acting now against the promotion of traditional British values and citizenship. This, in part, is what has brought Britain from one extreme of cultural imposition—a former empire and a bulwark against Nazism and communism—to one that is struggling to determine just who it is and what it stands for. The Radicalization of the Moderates Multiculturalism is unable to fully negotiate the differences between Islam and the nonMuslim West, though this does not mean that it has no role. Multiculturalism can spark

-6-

discussion, but under the Paradox it turns around and silences dissent. Ironically it is within this lost dialogue that focus is most urgently needed. The reality of militant extremism is grim. Recent surveys have found that when presented with a hypothetical situation 13 percent of British Muslims defended terrorism, and 1 percent said to have “actively engaged in, or supported” terrorism. At least 3,000 British Muslims have passed through training camps sponsored by or affiliated with Osama Bin Laden. No less than 28 percent of British Muslims would like to see “Britain as an Islamic state.” Further, 22 percent believed the July 7th bombings were justified by British involvement in the War on Terror, and 78 percent have agreed or strongly agreed to the statement that “those who published the Danish cartoons should be punished” (GfK). Another concern is a growing populism rooted in anti-British, anti-Israeli, and anti-American sentiment. Unfortunately, even those otherwise considered moderate are giving into the temptation of extremist sympathies. The pull of emotional and reactionary opposition to President Bush, American and British hegemony, or any other set of issues, is quite strong. As with Stalin, Mao, and Khomeini, the European left is showing its perennial tendency to do the bidding for political and social groupings that are fundamentally opposed to many of its own core values and beliefs. In the case of Britain, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and MP George Galloway (suspended from Parliament at the time of writing for his involvement in Saddam’s oil-for-food scandal) are two of the most fervent supporters of the Islamic right. These men, political and social progressives by most any definition, have turned the attention of their energies toward an alliance with a political movement that, at its roots, runs counter to some of the left’s most cherished values. Galloway’s own party, Respect, is a neo-socialist lot allied tightly with the Islamic—and evidence points also to Islamist—right. Some of these contradictions include sexual and reproductive freedoms, pluralistic rights of faith and politics, acceptance of homosexuality as entirely valid, freedom from religion, feminism, pornography, and a host of others. A case can really only be made for commitment to the poor (and they will be quick to tell you that), though that in itself is riddled with holes. It is convenient to blame foreign policy for the Islamist fetish with the West, but it is dishonest. When advocating such, one is either making clear where his loyalties lie, or, more likely, exposing his ignorance for all to see. Israel provides an excellent case. For example, contemporary American support of the Jewish state has always been a response to, not a provocation of, Islamist terrorism. It is fundamentally incorrect to assume that Israel is at the root of this Islamist rage; it is a consequence of the Paradox that Britons buy it in the first place. A Half Truth | the false supremacy of multiculturalism There is little evidence to support the notion that multiculturalism has ever held popular support. In fact, since the very public rise of Islamism, it has been the prominent members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities who have emerged the movement’s harshest critics. One reason to question the actual appeal and longevity of multiculturalism is that its growth has not been organic. Apart from inconsistent endorsement within minority communities, its advocacy has been lead from the top. Growing out of anti-racist struggles of the 1960’s and 70’s, multiculturalism was meant to be a virtue of British society, not a cure-all for racism and ethnocentrism. It has been misapplied, with unrealistic expectations. The doctrine of multiculturalism has not worked. British Muslims today are alienated to a

-7-

point that educated, middle-class, British-born citizens are choosing to become suicide bombers. There is reliable evidence to show that thousands of these young people have gone through terrorist training camps, and even more hold loyalties to groups or states other than their own. Short of this, large numbers of youth feel little to no attachment to society. Some suburban neighborhoods are literally entire villages that picked up and moved from Pakistan, preserving culture and language with modest assimilation. There is limited desire, even among the modern and Westernized young professionals, to “become British.” There is no English-Muslim identity for youth to gravitate towards. There is the unhealthy phenomenon of a growing nationalist backlash. Britons are forgetting who and what they are, and educators are afraid to assert a common culture or history. The society is showing signs of legitimate division. Multiculturalism is not entirely moot, nor exclusively to blame, but to treat it as hegemonic is either a drastic overstatement or a conclusion drawn from selective consideration of the actual state of affairs. There is a disconnect between those who seek to impose multiculturalism and a cool response from society. David Blunkett, former home secretary, told the BBC that multiculturalism exists in Britain today in only a small number of communities. He later told the World Tonight on Radio 4 that “true multiculturalism was confined to parts of London,” and a small number of other cities such as Leicester and Bradford (BBC). The reality is that it is very difficult to provide examples that multiculturalism is an ideology embraced by more than a small minority of British intellectuals, governing elites, and isolated interest groups. Is multiculturalism dead? Increasingly policy makers and intellectuals are calling it such, but only time will tell. As the Paradox expands so will its detachment from reality, and this will show as pressures exacerbate current and preexisting tensions. Before multiculturalism is discredited and passed by, there needs first to emerge an alternative, one that appeals to the government, minority leadership, and the general public. The Way Forward Britain’s Muslim community is comparatively better off than those in other Western European countries, at least in terms of socio-economic indicators such as home ownership, managerial positions in their places of work, and educational attainment. This can be accredited to a couple of factors, such as Britain’s open an inclusive atmosphere, a history of dealing with non-white people in commonwealth countries, and less stringent demands for color blindness. A strong economy helps, keeping unemployment at 4.7 percent (though higher for minorities) while neighboring France struggles with upwards of 20 percent for young people, and 40 percent for those from an immigrant background. An open market and relaxed labor restrictions provide this increased opportunity for employment, and the prevalence of mosques (hundreds in London alone, versus just a handful in all of France), cultural centers, and interfaith events means that youth have a better chance of feeling legitimate attachment to their society. During a focus group conducted with University students in Paris for the larger works of which this essay is a part, a young man said through an interpreter that momentum in France is against the colonial other. “Even second and third generation French are called ‘imigrates’…it is used as slang…immigrants are called this as well as those who were born here.” Similarly, in France a third generation Frenchman of Moroccan decent is not a “French-Moroccan,” or even “third generation French,” but a “third generation immigrant.” The perspective in Britain is

-8-

much more inclusive. The country’s social welfare apparatus is kept in check, and one’s ability to rely on the state for full support is inhibited. The British model of personal accountability and a verbose work ethic resembles that of the United States, and those on the bottom of society’s ladder are more compelled to climb. Britain is unique in its brand of multiculturalism, expanding its parameters to include religious recognition and tolerance. While this may be the society’s greatest asset, it also presents the most significant hurdle. If the Multicultural Paradox is recognized and dealt with, Britain will be in a good position to begin rethinking the way it approaches difference. This can only be more beneficial for everyone involved. The metropolis of London is, and will continue to be, the greatest stage on which to negotiate new models of identity. It is the multicultural capitol that must stand above and lead the nation, indeed all of Western Europe, towards a path of peace and prosperity for all. This will not occur by giving in to the short-term discomforts of integration, but by demanding assimilation so as to forge a new form of Briton—the English Muslim Briton. There is no reason why we must shy away from such tak, and non-white pragmatists must stand up and argue in favor of the merits of this term that has been stigmatized so. Only then will real progress have been made.

Citations Bagehot, "The uncomfortable politics of identity." The Economist Newspaper 19 Oct 2006. BBC, "Mayor's BNP outburst at Phillips." BBC News | Politics 01 Sept 2006 Nov 2006 . GfK NOP Social Research, "Attitudes to Living in Britain: A Survey of Muslim Opinion." Channel 4 Dispatches (26 April 2006). Huntington, Samuel. Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity. Reprint Edition. Simon & Schuster, 2005. Malik, Kenan. "CRC Policy Conference speech by Kenan Malik." Equity, Diversity, Interdependence. 27 April 2006. Community Relations Council. Nov 2006 . Modood, Tariq. "A defence of multiculturalism." SOUNDINGS: A journal of Politics and Culture 2004 Nov 2006 . Wolfe, A. The Costs of Citizenship: Assimilation and Multiculturalism in Modern Democracies, in Cohesion, Community and Citizenship. London: The Runnymede Trust, 2002.

About the Author Tim McDonald is a Research Fellow at Hamline University in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is a Junior Fellow at the American Academy of Political and Social Science, where he won their annual Undergraduate Research Award in the spring of 2007. Other areas of his academic and professional work include the economic and social implications of Mexican immigration to the United States, and secondary-level education reform. He may be contacted at [email protected].

-9-