Over-Liberalism and Multiculturalism in London

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Over the past 18 months that I’ve been living in the UK, and specifically London, I’ve been amazed at the number of things available to do and see in this capital. On other other hand, I’ve been dismayed by the social structure. I’ve gone to certain parts of London where I am in all but name outside Europe, where quiet streets are little runways for trash being blown about, mosques aplenty, people in the clothes of village people from South Asia, a relevant culture and attitude, and little ability to speak English. I am from Iran, and I’ve lived there for the majority of my childhood, and I’m quite familiar with the presence of multiple cultures within political borders. Be they Azeri, Arab, Armenian, Kurd, Baha’i, Baluchi etc. Yet disregarding the great amount of discontent in the entire population resulting from decades of mismanagement and attempts at erasing local cultures, which has led to separationist movements (most notably the kurds), when any one of these groups comes in contact with another it is not as a minority against another group but as an Iranian meeting an Iranian. There is common cultural ground based on a common nationality and history.

This is not true in London. Even though these people have access to education and are English citizens by law, they don’t share in any part of being English, and go so far in fact as to separate into local communities whose main interactions are within themselves. One very simple point is clothing. I know 3rd generation Pakistanis who wear a white robe, sandals and maybe even a village hat as their main garments. This though in all probability encouraged by the parents, is an instant divide between them and other groups all of whom wear some generic clothing like jeans and in practice creates a divide between these people whose only home has ever been England, and yet who identify themselves not as English, but as their local community. A comparison to this behavior would be the school playground where some children always dress differently and hang out together. The only difference here being that one is a matter of choice, while the other is tradition and is imposed on the child from an early age with liberalism preventing any possibility of integration into the native culture. Though I share in a number of liberal ideas due to my own experiences in a conservative atmosphere (in Iran even a teenage boy wearing shorts is seen as something to be frowned upon, a hairstyle that might be the least bit out of the ordinary could lead to harassment from a government bully), I think excess freedom with no obligation to adhere to some common social ground leads to separation of societies that would otherwise have been in interaction outside asking the cashier for the price of milk at the local kiosk.

Just some thoughts that have been running through my head in the past couple of months. I understand the situation is far less severe with the all encompassing MTV culture in America.

2

segregation and integration have merged; multiculturalism has broken the boundaries separating self from society, self from others. in such an environment individual differences lose meaning as emergent group structures individualize in the new medium of social interaction: the extra-hierarchial, dissociated relations of forms. repressive power goes beyond internalization by becoming identity, as administrative and associative power consolidates in ever-higher regions. liberalism itself becomes meaningless, indistinguishable from the social metastructures to which it gave birth. under such a system, blind preconscious conformity becomes a matter of instinct, the sole means by which group status, and therefore group rewards, are secured. this conformity, manifesting as conceptual ego-homogenization, is typically reacted against by adopting a rigid adherence to or submergence in superficial cultural expression. physical appearance, language, clothing and mannerisms adhere to ever-shrinking limits as they seek to hide the dissolution of personal identity and the progressive loss of any relation to a deeper, more human meaning in life.

welcome to the 21st century.

3

What do you expect from ghettos? While the degree of volition in maintaining these ghettos on both the part of the people living in them as well as those not living in them is up for debate, that they are ghettos is not. In America we have the same thing with our Mexican immigrants. Even in Indianapolis, not a megalopolis by any stretch of the imagination, there are areas I can go where English is simply not spoken. shrugs There is nothing new about this, it has pretty much been the immigrant experience throughout all of history. In the American experience, immigrant communities have stayed that way until they co-opted a piece of the local power infrastructure (police is the classic example) and over a generation-or-two became white. But without that piece of the local power structure, the ghetto mentality will persist pretty much indefinitely. Naturally, there are those who ‘get out’, indeed, they are required to build the foundation for the next step. But they are the exception, not the rule.

4

there is a fundamental difference between non-citizen immigrants who cannot speak english because they do not know it, but willingly want to participate in society, and citizens who know english but who choose not to speak it out of distain for their country’s dominant “white” culture, and who hold their own foreign-originating cultural norms as superior to those of the first-world nation they live in.

5

Not really. Plenty of Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants during the late 1800s were fully legal citizens but stayed in their own ghettos and maintained their own cultures. Heck, the German language was widely spoken in the Midwest until WWI! I think you have an ahistorical view of the situation.

6

the difference in nature between american-traditional foreign immigrants and current post-first-world cultural separation, as mentioned in the OP about the UK, lies in fundamental ideology. the irish/italian/german/etc immigrants that came to the US in the 17 and 1800s came to a new world, vastly different and full of opportunity. most importantly, they had not as-of-yet been given sufficient opportunity to integrate or merge cultures with US society; this is because the US had not yet transitioned successfully through liberalization and racial de-polarization which occurred during the 20th century. as such, past generations of foreigners, whether citizen or not, lived in an environment which presented a near-impossible barrier to social, political, economic and cultural assimilation.

the situation in today’s world is quite different. modern societies have moved through the transitional “civil rights” phases and come out the other side; multiculturalism reigns supreme as official and politically-correct doctrine. foreigners today, far from being marginalized by modern society, are presented with mechanisms of rapid integration. this does not mean that there is no resistance or racism, nor does it mean even that foreigners experience mostly pleasant interactions with modern citizenry: what it DOES mean, however, is that the institutions themselves willingly and as fully as possible absord new cultural modes and attitudes. society itself, as adminstration via institutional structures, presents far less barrier to integration and acceptance. furthermore, society encourages and assists transitions into modern life through a plethora of programs, such as welfare spending, housing subsidies, public outreach, charities, civil rights advocacy, grants for higher education, job training, etc. in modern society, there is no excuse for foreigners, citizens or not, to not quickly and successfully find a beneficial and productive niche within society.

what the OP refers to, without fully realising it, is the fact that in today’s day and age of politically-correct over-acceptance and appologetic appeasement towards minorities and the disenfranchised, those individuals who still refuse to integrate do so by choice, not by necessity as was the case historically in the US. the willfull and arrogant refusal to culturally adapt and merge becomes a form of resistance, albeit unconscious resistance and grounded in ignorance. even massive acts of hate or racism encountered by foreign citizens or immigrants, regardless of the quantity experienced, do not pose a threat to cultural integration and successful realization of productive activity. the key is that the new immigrants are a product of a new era, reacting the way they are because the do not HAVE TO assimilate, as they did in the past. historically, you banned together to survive, small pockets of your original culture and traditions helping each other out; yet once the avenue existed to assimilate into society, this was quickly and happily accomplished within several generations. this is not so with many current new immigrants; the system is different, the incentives changed. modern pockets of immigration or various differing cultural areas within large cities display an aversion to integration; more than happy to take the benefits so appologetically extended them by their new governments, foreigners claim independence from and arrogant disrespect for a system which does not even require even their attempt at compromise. fundamentally, many foreigners and immigrants, citizen or not, refuse to fully assimilate and coexist with modern first-world society, not because they dont want to per se, but because they dont HAVE to.

7

Yes, it is good that we have the media combatting culture in all forms. The only true culture is consumerism and the commodification of sex and our bodies. Once these old cultures give way we can all slide into the slots prepared for us.

8

Xunzian,
I am not referring to ghettos at all. Though there’s a number of areas in London that comprise of the lower class who live entirely on the state’s help, and you would have correctly addressed them, the problem is that even the educated and well-off immigrants often refuse to integrate. All the people I refer to are those who attend my university. One can see some of these people, who are in their early 20’s or even late teens, even driving in decent cars. That can’t be afforded on a student budget unless the parents subsidise. There are a relatively large number of women who in my university alone wear the burqa. There were a number of them today promoting palestine, which is quite sensible, but whom also support Hamas, which is an explicitly militant islamic government wishing to impose itself on the entire population. The only country where the burqa can still be seen in any significant amount would be Afghanistan, which is one of the poorest countries in the world and was ruled by a fundamentalist islamist government until the US took over. These families spend +3,000 pounds a year for each child (they almost certainly have more than one child, and often more than two), which until recently translated to ~6,000$ for the tuition fees alone, in a city where renting a room in a house that’s not falling apart is upwards of 120pounds a week with a more probable 150. These people are not necessarily poor, they’re not necessarily uneducated, and I’ve personally met people working in local government who’ve come to see our projects who speak English with a clearly foreign accent, they are in government. There are people who are South Asian by descent in parliament. Many immigrants (and geographic factors do come into effect with respect to the culture), some even being third generation, simply refuse to integrate, and overly liberal policy encourages this, even though integration would be beneficial to both the immigrant and the society they contribute to. It’s simply cultural protectionism within local communities encouraged by overliberalism.

It wasn’t unrealized, I tried to make a point to try and open the debate between the far right and the left with hints to both side. Seeing that Xunzian is liberal and you a conservative, I’m glad you’ve both posted.
Generally, this paragraph shares my view, as with the playground example, that separation in industrialized societies is no longer due to marginalization as with the US in the first half of the 20th century but chosen and protected by liberalist policies. Though perhaps I wouldn’t use words like apologetically.

9

A simple simulation. You could do this at home. Maybe.

Different ethnicities randomly distributed over an area in city X.

The only directive each ‘node’ is given is “move if you are surrounded by unlike”

A little while later:

Demarcations begin to form.

And later:

Some ‘streets’ become wholly one ethnicity, and some another.

It doesn’t take much imagination to up the scale to districts.

The moral of the story is:

It does not take very much sense of racial identity at all, to produce ghettos.

10

The problem is that while it’s liberal policies that allow for the presence of immigrants in the first place, it’s also a rational counterpart of the same liberal approach that makes it unrealistic to enforce certain cultural norms of speech and dress upon ANY citizen, immigrant or otherwise. It’s not hypocrisy or policy failure so much as just catch 22. There’s no fair way in an ostensibly free society to coerce immigrants into dressing and speaking in ways with which everyone else is comfortable. You can’t force people to speak a particular language all the time - particularly when they are on property or in a business which they legally own. Like is always going to stick with like to some extent, and I think that’s Xunzian’s primary point above when he brings up the history of ghettos. To a great extent, you’re not grappling with liberal policies so much as you’re grappling with human nature and the fundamentally conservative impulse whereby we form cliques and sub-communities based on shared cultural values and traits. I’m sure london was just as segregated into sub communities and localist niches even before any influx of non-English speaking peoples began. It’s just the way people operate, and part of the point of a free society is that people are permitted to operate in such ways, even if it isn’t always to the broader society’s benefit.

11

The answer is the English simply don’t want these people here, whom they see as economic transients. Excessively liberal policies are actually a way of maintaining barriers. I guess its pretty much the same for America.

Reminds me of a scene in The Good Shepherd:

12

Exactly, and in order for a city like London to function in the way it does it needs those people to perform key functions, as Rouzbeh has recognised. While I can see how it would benefit both the immigrant communities and the broad political culture to encourage increased participation, the idea of conformity for its own sake seems counter-intuitive, not to mention blind to the lessons of history.

Moreover, is anyone here capable of giving a coherent definition of what it means to be British, English, or even a Londoner?

13

I am not referring to ghettos. The problem of ghettos is first and foremost economic. That’s another argument, and deviates from this one.
One problem that I see is that lack of understanding of cultures leads to the classification of specific behavior types as cultural phenomena.

UPF,
It’s not about other languages being spoken. It’s a lack of desire to learn the language because there’s no incentive, the government provides the cheques and the communities prevent the person from ever leaving. I have some Greek friends. When they speak to each other, they speak Greek. Be it in front of a group or alone. I speak Farsi. When I’m with other people who speak Farsi, we speak Farsi. When we’re with friends who don’t, we speak English. It’s about respecting others and avoiding alienation. When the Greeks speak Greek in front of us, it’s clear that they’re in their own world.
I’m not advocating governments forcing behavior types. I have first hand experience with that and I wouldn’t advocate it. The idea is the same as the congestion charge. The city doesn’t want more than a certain number of cars in the city center. But it doesn’t say no to x cars. It simply charges a rate, and this has the same effect but with the choice to pay and enter the city center now available. You don’t have to force things to happen, that’s often the least effective method. You simply need to encourage change, or at the very least not discourage it. Free choice is preserved. Look at what Islam is said to have done in the middle east. Extra taxes were collected from non-muslims. It was supposedly not forced, but it converted the entire region. I’ll have to say before someone accuses me of it, I’m also not advocating economic incentives for integration. I’m merely pointing out my conclusion that what integration may’ve taken place has not due to its discouragement by multicultural protectionism; saying that everybody is just fine as they are. The reason I pointed out MTV in the first post was that I think mainstream culture (MTV being the face of that culture) in the US has created common ground between the younger generation of all races with considerable success given America’s conservative nature and history.
There’s always segregation, be it based on social, economic status, etc. The idea though is to minimize the disparities. There was a fantastic article that I think Xunzian posted by Isaac Asimov about how things are not done in absolutes (i.e. there’s 5 holes in this dam, there’s no point filling any one in, there will be another 4 regardless of which hole you fill in) and I think the same holds here.

Matty, I’m not saying conformity for conformity’s sake. If history has to do with anything, this protectionism and supposed acceptance is keeping communities apart and preventing interaction. Cultural uniformity is good for social cohesion and overall contentment I believe. I’ve pointed out the flaws of blind conformity in the OP from my own experiences. The problem is that there’s two extremes and I think this policy is leaning to the other extreme. Just a couple months ago a police station in some borough apologized to its local residents because it had a picture of a dog in a police hat and the residents supposedly found this offensive. I think a society that allows this kind of “we respect absolutely everything you do” creates a mentality in its constituents that they always need to be appeased, even with something as petty as a dog in a hat when really, the dog in the hat is irrelevant to why there’s a dog in the hat considering its influence. This can be further exemplified in the Sainsbury’s muslim cashiers if you remember. Several refused to even handle closed alcoholic containers, and some members of the muslim community condemned them but Sainsbury’s deemed it acceptable behavior. Though this could very well be seen as their right, I think it is only so due to ignorance of islam by the decision makers.
On your question of what it means to be English, it’s not a set criteria that is ticked. If nation’s borders seem arbitrary, then why should there be any set criteria for their members? It’s just a matter of convention but ultimately if someone’s behavior generally resembles that of another culture more so than that of the country they’re residing in (as with the burqa clad women), then they’re cultural foreigners.

As you may know, hundreds of English workers have gone on strike because contracts were given to an Italian company operating in the UK. I don’t sympathize, these are silly actions by disgruntled men. English companies operate outside the UK, and they’re not subject to protests when they land contracts. So it seems some of the English just don’t want anyone at all, from anywhere. But then again, these English don’t understand economics or the UK’s presence in the EU. The other disagreement is that you differentiate between the English and these people. These people are technically English and with my focus on the educated middle class, they’re bringing skilled labor to this country. They make worthy contributions to the English economy. My dilemma is that these people are products of English borders without doubt, but they’re not English by cultural standards, nor would they fit into the countries their families are from. They’re citizens of local communities, and this protectionism prevents integration into the wider community.

I hope I’ve made some sense as it’s a bit late.

14

Rouzbeh, my observations were in no way directed towards any individual respondent, least of all you, but rather a statement of my personal views on the matter - it seems we are in broad agreement on the best means of integration within communities, which is to say a recognition of responsibilities across the board. I think one of the major difficulties here - and given the work you seem to do it is a situation you will be no doubt be familiar with - is that particular organisations, groups and individuals have a certain freedom to interpret and interact with the wider culture as they see fit, and that this goes just as much for the indigenes as the immigrants. The trick, it seems, is to open up suitable spaces for increased interaction between these communities, which I believe is a view that is increasingly permeating our mainstream political culture in the UK; one can only hope it will also spread out to the margins.

15

And when we Americans are done with any immigrants from the Middle East lets go and fuck up the Amish.
And those damn traditional Indians, why dont they assimilate like the other good ones?

16

liberal and conservative as political terms are both misleading, and do not really apply in this situation; i am most definitely NOT a “conservative”, and i would prefer that we refrain from both making assumptions as well as bringing into the conversation vague and meaningless concepts as liberal and conservative; when i refer to “liberal” in the postings i refer to the traditional concepts of “liberalization”, of “diversification and multiplication” of views and ideas… it is not a jab or reference to a political party, platform or paradigm.

using “right” and “left” is a little more specific in this context, but it still greatly fails to capture the essential issues here, and serves only to muddy the debate with simplistic, stereotyped and false concepts.

thank you for correctly identifying the primary and active force at work: incentives. no one is claiming that anyone should be forced or coerced to do anything, or that they are actually being forced or coerced-- what needs to be recognized is the primacy of incentive as the guiding and moulding force for these social phenomena. voluntary segregation (and integration) by similarities such as race are done without the need for, and in spite of, physical or coercive force: they are emergent phenomena derived from broader and more subtle systems of incentives, some of which are recognized, and some which unknown, at least directly.

with enough incentives (i.e. desire manipulation), you can guarantee pretty much any outcome you like, given enough time…

17

thats why i said “without fully realising it”; but you do get the gist of what im saying, were almost on the same page…
:sunglasses:

18

What kinds of incentives are we alluding to?

19

in general, incentives as a concept, as an abstract subtle part of ingrained society… in specific, such incentives to assimilte include political involvement-representation/economic-employment advantage/positive social status/easier communication via common language/access to social programs via increased knowledge of the system, etc…

incentives to not assimilate would include such things as the LACK of all of the aforementioned things, and also the opposite, such as LACK of economic-employment advantage (because benefits are derived based on “foreign” status, rather than in spite of it)/lack of increased or positive social status (due to overliberalization, affirmative action, political correctness, etc)/and of course good old racial ethnocentricity, which exists everywhere but is boosted to increasing power when small groups live among larger groups of different races…

the numerous specific monetary/political/educational incentices combine with the overall public opinion and media-created image of “togetherness” and “diversity celebration”, making foreigners feel special of their LACK of assimilation, and drilling into their heads divisive group-mentalities by reinforcing the fact that they are different-- this leads to an aversion to assimilate, because such assimilation would result in the loss of that “special feeling”…

incentives as a concept encompass the whole totality of all the aforementioned things, to create a pervasive social atmosphere; no one single thing is responsible for the overall atmosphere, but just because it is diffuse and subtle in nature in no way means it lacks potency and compulsive power to shape unconscious and conscious urges and desires.

20

Oh, i understand the concept of incentives - my question was specific and practical - what kind of incentive programs are we talking about instituting in order to encourage greater assimilation?

I’m not familiar with London’s particularities with regards to foreigners, but I have to disagree that there is a lack of employment advantage for those who assimilate to any reasonable degree. Being a fluent English speaker opens up an entire higher level of job opportunity than is available to those who speak little or no English. Similarly, i don’t think lack of increased or positive social status is really attributable to overliberalization or misplaced political correctness given that the alternative would be to socially shun or marginalize those who actively display significant cultural differences - and all that does is complete the feedback loop of mutual exclusion and perpetuate the segregational tendencies.

I really think that “good old racial ethnocentricity” is itself the primary culprit, and i have a hard time understanding just how to offset that without making things worse. So far, popular culture seems to be the one great integrating force in actively multicultural Western societies, and that is already a market driven solution and not a policy initiative - so i guess i’m asking what can anyone really do at this point that’s going to be at all effective?

Hell, even in the melting pot of America all the black kids tend to sit with one another in the cafeteria (if there are even enough of them to form a group in the first place) - this is just the way people function - Sometimes, I think mutual live-and-let-live tolerance is the most we can hope for when it comes to the majority of humans - certainly, it seems to be the most we can demand …