<< Multi-Ethnic UK - Diversity	<Contents>	Multi-Ethnic UK - Universality >>

   
Cultural Diversity - Multi-Ethnic Britain (5)

Cultural Diversity

Cultural diversity encompasses issues of perceived and real differences with respect to age, gender, ethnicity, disability, religion, lifestyles, family and kinship, dietary preferences, traditional dress, language or dialects spoken, sexual orientation, educational and occupational status, and other factors (Purnell & Paulanka, 1998). In valuing diversity, the awareness of diversity, an understanding of values, beliefs, behaviours and orientations are essential.

Ethnic groups may express differences in language, food preferences, religious beliefs and practices. When caring for people from different cultural background it is important to assess their needs and meet these in a culturally congruent way.

Multiculturalism refers to a plural society where diversity is valued. It advances the desirability of ethnic pluralism, where ethnic or cultural groups can coexist peacefully (Haralambos & Holborn, 1996). Thus the recognition and valuing of diversity is encouraged. Multiculturalism has been used as a tool for policy formulation in many public sectors, particularly in education (Yuval-Davis, 1992). However, multiculturalism has been criticised for its limitations in advancing more than just a superficial understanding of diversity, less an acceptance. As Donald and Rattansi have argued 'Its drawback was that a multicultural celebration of diversity tended to reproduce the 'saris, samosas and steel-bands syndrome'. That is, by focusing on the superficial manifestations of culture, multiculturalism failed to address the continuing hierarchies of power and legitimacy that existed among different centres of cultural authority' (Donald and Rattansi, 1992, p.2). By emphasising differences, and attributing to cultures the main differences, multiculturalism as observed in the context of Britain and 'English culture' failed to address the uniqueness of the cultures and their position in the relation to assimilation and integration. It did not address the underlying problems of inequalities and power.

Parekh (1997) has argued that neither assimilation nor integration is the answer to the question of the place of minority ethnic groups in society. 'Assimilation refers to total absorption into the wider society's culture, and the concomitant surrender of the immigrant's cultural identity. Contrary to what its advocates have argued, assimilation has nothing to do with identification. The immigrant does not have to become like the rest in order to develop a common sense of belonging with them. Indeed, since assimilation demands a culturally unacceptable membership fee, it provokes resentment, a sense of discrimination and even persecution, and hinders identification. Assimilation is also an incoherent notion, for no society, especially not a liberal one, has a unified cultural structure into which the immigrants can be required to assimilate themselves.' (Parekh, 1997, p.ix).

In a multicultural society, integration has been thought of as one of the many ways of dealing with cultural diversity. Integration occurs where there is an interest in maintaining the original culture and in interactions with others. Parekh has pointed out that 'integration is a social concept…defined differently in different societies, and by different groups in Britain, it minimally implies that immigrants should not live in isolated and self-contained communities and cut themselves off from the common life of the wider society, as also that they should acquire the required degree of conceptual competence to find their way around in the society at large.' (Parekh 1997,p.ix). Parekh has suggested that immigrants choose to integrate at some levels of society and not others.

Societies maintain and reconcile cohesion, equality and difference through mechanisms of government, and the following five models have been considered (The Runnymede Trust ,  2000, p.42).

1. Procedural – in such a case the state adopts a culturally neutral stance. It does not interfere or intervene, allowing individuals and communities to negotiate freely with each other, and as they wish within certain agreed basic procedures by they have to abide. This is thought of a 'proceduralist view of unity and diversity'.
2. Nationalist - the state actively promotes a single national culture to which each citizen is expected to subscribe. Those who do not or cannot assimilate are treated as second-class citizens. This model represents a nationalist view.
3. Liberal - this view is characterised by a 'common political culture' with 'a unified and cohesive political system in the public sphere', and 'substantial tolerance of diversity in people's private lives, and in the internal affairs of distinct communities'. This model illustrates a liberal view.
4. Plural - this model rejects the distinction between private and public spheres, placing more emphasis on recognition of diversity. It is characterised by unity and diversity in public life and private lives, by the notion of the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and there is visible interdependence and overlap between and within communities. This pluralist view characterises the multicultural society. It represents what has been termed as 'the community of communities' in this report.
5. Separatist - in this model the state allows and expects each community to remain separate, without any overlap or interdependence, in a kind of federation. Each community has responsibilities for organisation and regulation of their own affairs, with the state having 'no moral status of its own, but simply has to protect, maintain and nurture its various constituent communities, and the distinction between them' (p. 44).

It has been suggested that the five models are not mutually exclusive and that they can be found locally in modern Britain. The emphasis on unity, diversity, and culture varies in each model.

A multicultural society should be based on equal citizenship (Parekh, 1997, p. ix), and five areas have been identified for consideration, and commitment for change:

1. elimination of discrimination
2. equality of opportunity
3. equal respect
4. acceptance of immigrants as a legitimate and valued part of society
5. the opportunity to preserve and transmit their cultural identities including their languages, cultures, religions, histories and ethnic affiliations.

Furthermore, multiculturalism should not only aspire to develop shared values but also recognises differences, with an aim to embed these in the vision of a human rights culture (The Runnymede Trust, 2000). In its alternative vision of Britain, this report places much emphasis on the idea of 'a community of communities' and presents a set of aspirations for Britain. (The Runnymede Trust, 2000, p.3).

Cultural identity is a subjective interpretation of the individual in relation to the context and is experienced at different levels across situations. Experiences within the culture are important in shaping one's cultural identity. Cultural identity in relation to poverty, diseases and lifestyles may not be derived from ethnicity.

<< Multi-Ethnic UK - Diversity	<Contents>	Multi-Ethnic UK - Universality >>