A patronising view by the state

Prime minister David Cameron's speech denouncing state multiculturalism as a failed and divisive project is worth mulling over in local government circles. Especially so as communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has told us that – after budget cuts – his next priority will be community cohesion. He promises a speech ‘about integration, about the things that unite us'. And, given that multiculturalism – the policy – has largely been delivered by councils, a critical assessment is long overdue. (Pic: Shutterstock/grynold) One hopes Mr Cameron's speech can start a frank debate. Unfortunately, it has been greeted with lazy smears, written off by opponents as soft bigotry, and linked to the English Defence League's ‘Islamophobic' demonstration in Luton. So, to clarify: my focus here is on multiculturalism as a policy, rather than a critique of Britain as a vibrant, cosmopolitan society. It is not an argument against immigration or Islam. It is an argument against a local and national government policy that has been pivotal over the last 25 years. We can be unsurprised that any challenge to this particular orthodoxy is greeted with cries of ‘you can't say that'. A key tenet of multicultural philosophy is the demand that all cultural identities are given unconditional affirmation and respect, but this inevitably discourages any form of questioning, criticism or evaluation. This approach of limiting of criticism has led institutions, from theatres to the BBC, to adopt self-censorship as the official default position; to avoid causing offence. So keen are councils to prove their uncritical respect for different cultural identities, from renaming Christmas to crass attempts at celebrating myriad religious festivals, they have regularly lived up to the Daily Mail newspaper's caricature. Ironically, this is often to the horror of people from different cultural groups, who squirm with embarrassment at the over-eager enthusiasm exhibited by local dignitaries for ‘saris, samba and samosas'. While there are undoubtedly opportunists who exploit multicultural sensibilities by shouting offence or demanding special recognition, it is important to note that minority communities are neither the drivers – nor even the beneficiaries – of top-down multiculturalism. It has been state institutions which have actively sought to define people as essentially defined by their ethnicity, culture or religion. For example, in the arts, as Sonya Dyer, the London-based artist and arts administrator, persuasively argued in her report Boxed In, artists have been put under pressure, to identify themselves and their work self-consciously in terms of their different identities, in order to access funding. Or, want to set up a youth club? You're more likely to gain official attention if you present it as a Sikh/Muslim/Afro-Caribbean youth project. As the title of Ms Dyer's report implies, this has trapped people into fixed ethnic/cultural boxes. Inevitably, this approach treats communities as homogenous wholes. When councils consult with the ‘Sikh community', or the ‘Muslim community', they are not empowering communities but rather, they're empowering self-appointed community leaders. This might give some a close relationship with the state, but it also allows politicians to evade treating minorities directly in a colour/culture-blind way, as equal citizens who need to be convinced, argued with and represented as all constituents should be. Ironically, the whole £140m Prevent strategy has been hoist on its multicultural petard. It promised to support the development of ‘projects… which would provide a counter narrative to extremist views'. But these too often comprised the promotion of ‘a traditional and moderate understanding of Islam'. Never mind that it is no business of the state to intervene in theological niceties. Such approaches actually reinforce a sense of separateness. And it backfires. As the DCLG select committee's scathing report noted last March, the results have been that many Muslims felt alienated and stigmatised because they were targeted for intervention – as Muslims. Meanwhile ‘moderate' Muslim groups which took the council's shilling have been variously written off as ‘Uncle Toms' or spies. Unfortunately, although aspects of the prime minister's speech are sensible, his approach to ‘Islamic' extremism seems destined to repeat the same ‘multicultural' mistakes. Am I being unfair? After all, councils have made an effort to integrate communities into British life over recent years by offering municipal training packages for mosque leaders and imams in health and safety and child protection, because, apparently, madressahs and mosques have not been participating in British society because of their failure to take out building insurance or to conduct CRB checks. Mr Cameron did at least have the honesty to admit that one reason different communities might not feel part of a bigger project beyond community identities is the establishment's failure to provide a vision of society worth signing up to. Hopefully Mr Pickles' things that unite us speech will come up with something more inspiring. Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas

Title

WHITEHALL

A patronising view by the state

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING