How England Sees Itself

[craner]

Is it ethno-separatism, "ethno-centrisms" and micro-nationalisms that are inimical to liberalism, or collective, internationalist or pragmatic ideologies or programmes, such as socialism or One Nation Toryism?

 

[vimothy]

What I mean by a shell game is that multiculturalism is hiding something. The Big Idea is supposed to be a patchwork of cultures, all given equal respect and allowed to flourish in their own unique way. That’s what it says on the corporate brochure, anyway, but the real destination is rather different.

The telos (to borrow a bit of philosophical jargon) of modern liberalism is the Rawlsian depersonalised and disembodied subject, with no history or culture and no community loyalties or affinities, who lives under a universal constitution characterised by the neutrality of authority and the replacement of political compromise by the resolution of disputes as technical matters of legal rights.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that the real goal is not a plurality of cultures, but no culture at all. I.e., the real goal of multiculturalism is in fact a-cultural: a society of disconnected consumers organised around the satisfaction of individual and equally valid desires where all the important relationships are formal, either bureaucratic or market based. Multiculturalism is just a way station on route to that City on a Hill.

 

[vimothy]

That’s a lot of abstract, armchair-philosophy, though. I suppose it wouldn’t be hard to argue that I’m wrestling straw men, but I'm afraid armchair philosophy is all I've got an you gotta dance with them what brung ya. What’s the difference between Tory and New Labour policies in this area? I have no idea. I’m sure that you’d be much better placed to explain that.

Let’s see what else I can say in response to some of your other questions.

What’s going on with the state? Rationality generally seems like a good way of doing things to most people and so they want to organise society according to a few simple, overarching principles. If we take what men want to be the standard and allowing them to fulfil those wants equally to be the highest good, then the state can be seen to have a purely technical or instrumental function.

Historically, liberals tended to have a positive conception of the good, but in the post-Rawlsian age this is considered to be regressively divisive and judgemental. Instead, authorities are expected to remain strictly neutral with respect to conceptions of the good, which are the free choices of autonomous individuals. Equality demands nothing less than the “legal disestablishment of morality”.

The state is then envisioned as an abstract entity whose function is the solution of narrow technical problems and which has no connections to any particular culture or community. It’s just kind of floating around in space, maximising welfare across a set of identical disembodied consumers who have neither history nor ethnicity.

 

[vimothy]

The EU ideal, in other words (itself American in origin), and, eventually, one world government.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that the things that motivate liberal political philosophy are achievable or even coherent. It’s much more likely in my view that everything collapses back into the mud, while academics and policy makers refuse to notice. Or that the maintenance of stability will increasingly rely on unprincipled exceptions to the ideal, ratcheting up the tension between myth and reality and driving the intellectuals ever further into myth.

One of my favourite quotes from Tocqueville is this description of France during the revolution but which could easily have been written today:

Every public passion was thus wrapped up in philosophy; political life was violently driven back into literature, and writers, taking in hand the direction of opinion, found themselves for a moment taking the place that party leaders usually hold in free countries… Above the real society… there was slowly built an imaginary society in which everything seemed simple and coordinated, uniform, equitable, and in accord with reason. Gradually, the imagination of the crowd deserted the former to concentrate on the latter. One lost interest in what was, in order to think about what could be, and finally one lived mentally in the ideal city the writers had built.​

An “an imaginary society in which everything seemed simple and coordinated, uniform, equitable, and in accord with reason”—to quote someone or other, “there’s a lot of that going around these days”.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This was Mr. Tea's curious formulation, in regard to their ignorant and mistaken nomination of "Muslim leadership" in the UK -- which was, in fact, a Tory mistake to begin with, merely reinforced by the likes of Jack Straw. What was the "New Labour" style of multiculturalism, how does it differ from other "styles", and what are they?

Oh blimey, I was just repeating something I'd read somewhere which seemed to make sense to me given Labour's obsession with giving ethnic minorities representation based primarily on race, original nationality and above all religion. I'll try and find the original article, I'm not sure everything in it could be taken as gospel truth but made some very interesting and probably quite valid points. Like how a couple of decades ago there was at least some degree of solidarity between blacks and Asians in racially mixed towns in the Midlands and Yorkshire in the face of frequent hostility from a large part of the white population (funny how you don't hear so much about the "white community", who have councillors, mayors and MPs rather than "community leaders"). But then the creation of these various councils and groups to represent minority communities changed that by creating competition for resources and representation, and now there are really serious tensions between black and South Asian communities in many areas, to the point of riots and murders. To say nothing of the tensions between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in some areas, a serious upwelling in anti-Semitic feelings (and actions) among Muslims. Also, the official "community leaders" for the local Bengali or Pakistani or West Indian population, whose authority was meant to be largely ceremonial, suddenly had a lot of real political power because ethnic minorities can often be relied on to block vote in council elections depending on which candidate is favoured by their representative imam/pastor/tribal elder or whoever. I mean you only have to look at the utter fucking shambles in the recent elections in Tower Hamlets...

I think these policies were probably introduced with largely noble intentions but they've unintentionally had a divide-and-conquer effect, not by disempowering minorities but by empowering them in a naive and undemocratic way.

The point about there being different 'styles' of multiculturalism was made by comparing the UK to France, where a diametrically opposite approach - "if we can't see racism, then it isn't there" and a ban on all forms of racial profiling - has led to a similar situation: ethnic ghettoization and that tacit, semi-self-conscious "I'm not racist, but..." kind of racism (or at any rate xenophobia) among many middle-class white people who would never dream of actually voting for a far-right party. Having said that, it might be a bit different in France considering le Pen junior recently polled almost a fifth of the popular vote in a general election. And on the other side, ethnic separatism and a lack of integration, along with an undeniable rise in more or less radical strains if Islam(ism), has understandably help fuel white suspicion of certain ethnic groups. Though of course this fact is completely taboo among the more left-wing tendency in the Labour party and the various 'Respect' (lol)/SWP/Stop The War factions who rely so heavily on the support of minority and especially Muslim communities.

Another factor is Labour's support for faith schools, which encourage a de-facto monoculturalism within a notional multiculturalism. Exactly how "multicultural" is a school where all the kids are Catholic, Jewish, Sunni or whatever? I mean, people love to describe London as this great multicultural 'melting pot' city, and it's true that there's less visible friction and separation between different ethnic groups than exists in a lot of other British cities and probably many European cities too. But in reality, what you tend to get is a bunch of white English people who largely keep themselves to themselves, and a bunch of Turkish people who do the same, ditto Bengalis, Poles, West Indians, Somalis, Chinese and so on, all living cheek-by-jowl. Whereas I've noticed in Oxford, for example, it's very common to see interracial couples with kids, much more common than in London.

This is a bit of a brain-dump but I hope it clarifies what I said earlier.


Edit: and as Craner mentions, there's the added complication of parliamentary devolution, power-sharing in NI, regional assemblies, the huge popularity of the SNP (which probably has more support among English people than any Westminster government would care to admit), leading to a reaction in the form of a specifically English nationalism, increasing suspicion of the EU what with a far bigger influx of East European immigrants that anyone expected, and now a crisis in the euro, bailouts for the failing EU economies. And mad wankers in Cornwall who think they belong to a well-defined Cornish 'race'...

The SNP situation is interesting, as while New Labour was generally in favour of devolution it was absolutely terrified of full Scottish independence as it would have been completely fucked long before the 2010 election without the support of Scottish voters. Although I suppose an independent Scotland would necessarily be far more financially dependent on the EU, which must be a far less attractive option now than it looked ten years ago.

 

[zhao]

surprised this has not yet been mentioned:

Multiculturalism assumes that people come in cultural boxes that are hermetically sealed, that their culture is a thing that is immutable and pure. There was a time when this theory was valuable against the torrent of white supremacy, but now it is itself a problem and it is historically ridiculous. There is no culture that is pure; even those who live in "remote" areas share forms and manners transmitted through traders, etc.

If we assume that cultures are pure and that people live within these cultural boxes, then any struggle on the terrain of race (now seen as culture) is sought to be managed by someone who is a cultural expert or a multicultural officer. This is most obvious on college campuses, where tensions are to be softened by education, which actually means a banal discussion about cultural stereotypes masking as cultural literacy. Multiculturalism fosters the idea of racial harmony, whereas I am more interested in anti-racism, in the struggle to abolish the idea of racial hierarchy and of race itself.

Polyculturalism, taken seriously, obliterates authenticity. The pose of authenticity offers the ruling elites of a "race" to attain demographic power vis-à-vis other "races," to argue that they represent a group of people and because of "race" can speak for them. Authenticity allows race to top all other social fractures, and thereby give entrenched elites of color the power to be representative when all they are is compradors. Fanon's diatribe on the "pitfalls of national consciousness" is an early smash at the idea of authenticity. By the way, the argument about the authentic (whose content is often colonial ethnology) allows white supremacy to adjudge who is a real native, to say that the rebellious Asian, for example, is doing a disservice to Asian culture.

A polyculturalist sees the world constituted by the interchange of cultural forms, while multiculturalism (in most incarnations) sees the world as already constituted by different (and discrete) cultures that we can place into categories and study with respect. What would history look like from a polycultural perspective? Well, rather than see Hong Kong business exclusively as a hybrid of an ancient Confucianism and a modern capitalism, as in the work of Tu-Wei Ming, we might take heed of the Jesuit role in the making of early modern ?Confucianism?, as in the fine work of Lionel Jensen? Rather than treat Indian students at Yale as aliens, we might consider that the university received seed money from Elihu Yale, one time governor of Madras, whose wealth came from the expropriated labor of Indian peasants

 

[zhao]

but i really came here to post about this new book, which outlines post-colonial history and offers analysis of present day neocolonialism and current reactionary, nostalgic, racist, conservative historical revisionism:

Could it be that Europe's abandonment of formal empire failed to provoke a cathartic revision of grandiose old notions of national and racial superiority? Certainly, projecting military force deep into Asia and Africa, Blair and Sarkozy seemed overly eager to borrow macho postures from the 19th century. Public nostalgia for the imperial era in Britain also continues to be tickled by patriotic historians, and "may appear", Drayton warns, "to be an innocent kind of solitary vice".

But the last decade of neo-imperialist "creative destruction" ruined, almost invisibly to its perpetrators and cheerleaders, millions of lives in remote lands. It is now obvious, as Drayton writes, that the intellectual "narcissism which orders the past to please the present" can also find "violent external expression in war and in an indifference towards the destruction, suffering and death of others".

 

[baboon2004]

that sounds interesting, may have to buy it.

prompted by this sentence in the article: "The much-heralded shift of power from the west to the east may or may not happen.":

http://newleftreview.org/II/60/ho-fung-hung-america-s-head-servant i've highlighted this article before, but bears flagging up again. I think it's pretty fascinating on the China-US power dynamic/possibilities for the future

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

based on the olympics ceremony, it would seem that england likes to portray itself as happily multi cultural, and likes to pat itself on the back for it, while at the same time, complaining/questioning its own immigration policies/arguably crumbling national identity as caused by said immigrants.

 

[luka]

after 6 years in australia its very noticeable that the only thing any english person wants to ask is 'its very racist over there isnt it' to which the answer is no, not really, not compared to here. the british like to think of racism as being akin to smallpox, something we've managed to eradicate completely. the complacency and self-congratualtion is astonishing.

 

[luka]

not that im the best person to judge how racist any particular society is necessarily.....

 

[Mr. Tea]

based on the olympics ceremony, it would seem that england likes to portray itself as happily multi cultural, and likes to pat itself on the back for it, while at the same time, complaining/questioning its own immigration policies/arguably crumbling national identity as caused by said immigrants.

Yep, there's this overwhelming sense of contradiction or tension, isn't there? I think vimothy summed it up quite well when he said something about how we desperately want to celebrate 'Britishness', whatever that is exactly, but any national identity necessarily includes a certain group of people and tacitly excludes everyone else. But at the same time, we want to be inclusive, and diverse and tolerant and vibrant and all those nice things. So do you say, Britishness is this and this but not that - and risk excluding some cultural feature of a group that's settled here - or do you define it as simply the sum total of cultures of everyone who lives here, in which case the term is so vague as to be meaningless?

Also, it's not just immigration that erodes national identity - there's a huge swathe of the native white population that doesn't have much interest in British culture, however you choose to define that. The finger is usually pointed at America, of course, with some justification (compare the number of high streets with a McDonald's to the number with a proper fish'n'chip shop). Perhaps this is beginning to turn a liiitle bit, what with the resurgence of interest in indigenous British foods, after decades of fetishizing all things French and Italian (and Indian, Thai etc.). One thing Britain does do very effectively is act as a great cultural sponge, sucking up foreign influences and making new things out of them. You only have to listen to all the British music that's absorbed strong West Indian influences but at the same time sounds identifiably British. Or the adaptations of Indian/Pakistani/Bengali food that are now different enough from the recipes they were originally derived from as to constitute a new kind of cuisine in their own right.

 

[baboon2004]

after 6 years in australia its very noticeable that the only thing any english person wants to ask is 'its very racist over there isnt it' to which the answer is no, not really, not compared to here. the british like to think of racism as being akin to smallpox, something we've managed to eradicate completely. the complacency and self-congratualtion is astonishing.

don't know anything about australia, but true re Britain. Same with British people pegging Americans as brash and unsubtle.

 

[Leo]

after 6 years in australia its very noticeable that the only thing any english person wants to ask is 'its very racist over there isnt it' to which the answer is no, not really, not compared to here. the british like to think of racism as being akin to smallpox, something we've managed to eradicate completely. the complacency and self-congratualtion is astonishing.

guessing it's maybe due to all the international press coverage of the Cronulla beach violence back in 2005, think there were also some similar attacks in 2009. as is usually the case, i'm sure this was probably caused by a very small contingent (who can be found in every country), but unfortunately it's what the press loves to cover.

 

[Mr. Tea]

don't know anything about australia, but true re Britain. Same with British people pegging Americans as brash and unsubtle.

I dunno, I'm not sure this one is entirely without basis, but then it's hardly as if Britain is lacking in brash and unsubtle people. You just have to look at how (a lot of) Brits behave on holiday in the Med or eastern Europe.

I can't say I noticed much racism from the Aussie housemates and neighbours I knew in London, but then if you were a dyed-in-the-wool white supremacist you probably wouldn't choose to live in E3. One thing I did notice is that most of them are incredibly loud (luka, does this fit with your experience?). They also have a most unfortunate proclivity towards ska-punk. Generally a sound bunch though.

 

[zhao]

I am human, you merely resemble one, let me destroy you.

"Last week three elderly Kenyans established the right to sue the British government for the torture that they suffered – castration, beating and rape – in the Kikuyu detention camps it ran in the 1950s.

Many tens of thousands were detained and tortured in the camps. I won't spare you the details: we have been sparing ourselves the details for far too long. Large numbers of men were castrated with pliers. Others were raped, sometimes with the use of knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels and scorpions. Women had similar instruments forced into their vaginas. The guards and officials sliced off ears and fingers, gouged out eyes, mutilated women's breasts with pliers, poured paraffin over people and set them alight. Untold thousands died."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...atastrophe-europe?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

In his book Exterminate All the Brutes, Sven Lindqvist shows how the ideology that led to Hitler's war and the Holocaust was developed by the colonial powers. Imperialism required an exculpatory myth. It was supplied, primarily, by British theorists.

i wonder what Niall makes of this...

 

[hucks]

I saw this about Cameron not apologising for Amritsar (which is a big deal inasmuch as he's apologised for other stuff the the British state did in which he was not involved) and thought of this thread.

William Dalrymple was on the radio this morning talking about Amritsar and how it wasn't even the worst thing the British did in India. He said the Empire was "built on skulls" then went on to lament that his children aren't taught about Empire "for good or ill".

So as regards how England sees itself, I think that is where we are at the moment. On the one hand - massacres. A terrible shame. On the other - railways, parliamentary democracy. Some good, some bad.

Whereas, if any British person knows anything at all about the Belgians in the Congo it is that they were terrible, cruel, violent, exploitative etc. So our Empire was the best of a bad bunch. I think that's how England sees itself.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Whereas, if any British person knows anything at all about the Belgians in the Congo it is that they were terrible, cruel, violent, exploitative etc.

People of all political stripes love a bit of what-aboutery. So yes, as I understand it there was a particular savagery about the late joiners-in in the scramble for Africa (Belgium, Germany) - but if someone feels the need to bring that up in a discussion specifically about the British empire, the response is surely "so what?". The crimes of one power don't excuse or lessen the crimes of any other. Like people who can't let a mention of the Taliban pass without insisting that the Catholic church does some terrible stuff too, or that yes, the Nazis were evil but what about the Soviets, eh?

 

[baboon2004]

What do they teach in Belgian schools? Probably that the British and French were barbaric, Belgians less so, I'd have thought, but maybe not...

 

[Mr. Tea]

I have no idea. TBH I can't remember learning much about the other European colonial empires at GCSE, beyond the fact that they were broadly doing the same sort of things our lot were doing. I don't recall a league table of atrocity, at any rate.