Cameron’s Multiculturalism: Praise and Concerns
The nuts of David Cameron’s speech is as follows: it was badly delivered by the Prime Minister; it used vacuous terms no-one is familiar with like muscular liberalism; and though it chimed with things he has previously said, perhaps it was an error to deliver a speech addressing political and extreme Islam, in Germany, on the same day as the English Defence League marched in Luton.
Many bloggers and writers have been quick to point out that Cameron’s speech was ill-informed. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown for example said:
“Many of us Muslims would be with David Cameron if his speech hadn’t shown him to be selective, hypocritical, calculating, woefully indifferent to Muslim victims of relentless racism and chauvinism. He was speaking the words of white extremists but in posh.”
An Independent leader article explained that though the PM was spoilt for choice as to where he could’ve delivered a speech of national interest – Luton, Bradford, Birmingham, London – instead he chose Munich, which for Indy editors seemed “especially odd … since Germany is going through a spasm of intolerance towards its ethnic minority communities at the moment.”
Cameron’s use of the word liberal concerned others. Victoria Williams at Labour Uncut wondered if by “liberal” Cameron meant “forcing your beliefs onto others and excluding them from society if they disagree”.
However none of these examples really get to why Cameron was flawed in his actual sentiments. Moreover they seem less inclined to engage with how we oppose all forms of segregation and extremism, while being tolerant and multicultural without being culturally relativist.
Appealing to a sense of (muscular liberal) Britishness – which John Milbank yesterday noted for sounding far too ‘Cleggian’ and ‘Osbornite’ – was one notable error of Cameron’s. Most people oppose extremist tendencies of any stripe, but do so with a set of tangible ideas, which “Britishness” is not. Instead it is a term which can be twisted and turned into whatever meaning one wishes. Ideas which Cameron was quite happy to promote – universal human rights for everybody including women and people of other faiths; equality of all before the law; democracy and the right of people to elect their own government – are formed through political appeals to freedom and prosperity for all, border markings are irrelevant here, and serve only to trivialise.
There is nothing contradictory about multiculturalism and integration, but Cameron – if he was any kind of ideas man, transcending the Conservative Party’s recent past of patriotism for its own sake – ought to have spent less time trying to work out what Britishness means and reject what Nick Johnson, author of a recent Fabian Society report on integration, calls the “narrow conservatism that erodes diversity into a monolithic whole.”
Credit where it is due, Cameron does understand that diversity ought not to be forced, and individuals in a society should not be tenuously pigeon-holed in what he rightly referred to as “state multiculturalism” (though it’s fair game to ask what Cameron imagines can replace it?).
Finally the criticism levelled at Cameron’s speech that it was propaganda for the EDL (which Sadiq Khan accused the PM of) is way off the mark. The impetus here should be for leftist groups and anti-extremist movements who rally against the far right to make their opposition to fundamentalist Islam more vocal, ruining any opportunity the EDL have of saying Mr Cameron is talking their language. To be sure, nothing Cameron said on extremism in some communities should be to the contrary of what the left fights for, and yet instead of engaging with this angle, some are happier to accuse Cameron of propaganda and leave that void wide open for the EDL.
Cameron made a pigs ear out of his recent speech, but many on the left have hardly been accurate in their critiques.
Cameron made a right pigs ear the day he decided to come into office-their soo damn good at it-as soon as he got power everything got trashed worse than what it was and now we the public have to bear the backlash of this-well that’s nothing new considering labours record and how Blair and Brown trashed the system and we had to bear the brunt of it all-we’ll never be able to vote again as voters-how can we-everytime these fools are voted into power the system gets trashed worse than what it was originally-its a no win scenario for us and we have no choice but to abide with a shower of s**t everytime alike idiot voters put in charge-it’ll NEVER change.
Multiculturalism is another of Blair’s failed policies used only to benefit his own ambitions,is it a coincidence that this policy was formulated as Cherie was trying to get her children into the London Oratory.
On reflection, I like your argument here Carl, though I think you are too harsh on Cameron. In particular I’m not sure the attempt to define Britishness is as vacuous as you argue (though I agree it probably isn’t as helpful as the changes laid out in the Fabian pamphlet you linked).
The fact that the political ideals Cameron believes to be British aren’t unique to Britain doesn’t mean they can’t be a defining characteristic of a collective identity. We are inevitably tied together as a community by our national borders, in that they determine the polity of which we are a part, the laws which govern us, the services available to us and so forth. I don’t see a reason that a healthy respect for others, democracy, egalite etc can’t be implicit in membership of that community. But maybe I miss your point.
Secondly, I think you are overly dismissive of muscular liberalism. Whether it is clear in meaning or not (and outsiders to Socialist discourse might spy some glasshouses here) it seems to me that Cameron is coming someway towards grasping the nettle that to be a political liberal is not to be value neutral: as you yourself agree, I think, with your dislike of cultural relativism. Snide mutterings of Vicky Williams aside, I don’t know of anyone who can see a clear way through that problem, so to expect a politician to do so seems a bit much.
I’ve come back a little too late, for which I apologise. What I would say is I was a little confused as to why Cameron used this new fangled phrase “muscular liberalism,” which of course sounds to many people like waffle (like BS – be that big society or bull shit). If he’d explained the kind of liberal politics he meant – which as you’ve rightly pointed to is value-positive liberalism – then perhaps he could’ve discarded this empty appeal to Britishness.
Unlike many of my leftist comrades I think the Cameron talk was as much about tolerance as it was against extremism. By shouting him down, focusing on timing (timing? — if you principles shouldn’t matter! Timing??) it proves the point of many to the right who say the left are unable to handle such issues, or when someone does they’re racist or dog-whistling etc etc.
Moreover, a revival in cultural relativism is a product of postmodernist liberalism, so in a way I wish that Cameron had addressed a wider audience. Perhaps I’m asking too much. The other reason why the post above looked at concerns was because by calling up Britishness – which btw is a kind of state culturalism – is because my scepticism of state multiculturalism is not followed by an appeal to state British monoculturalism, it is based on what values I think are best for a civilisation, which transgresses both cultural and national (?) values.
Cameron is behind a bit, mostly because being against state mulitculuralism is not the same as being against multiculuturalism. Being for multiculuturalism is not necessarily about being value neutral, I think you’ll agree.
In brief, I stopped being able to tell, during Cameron’s speech, whether he was singing to the galleries, or confusing terminology. Point accepted about socialist lingo and glasshouses, but I think the problem with Cameron was also that he could have been simpler.
“We are inevitably tied together as a community by our national borders, in that they determine the polity of which we are a part, the laws which govern us, the services available to us and so forth.”
Provided you ignore Scotland, with its separate education and legal systems and substantially different public-sector service provisions…
This is a point I always return to whenever the term “multiculturalism” comes up – the UK has been multicultural for as long as it’s existed. Even within the nations of the UK there is substantial cultural variation – the culture of the Western Isles (where the Wee Frees are still fighting a fairly successful holding action against anybody doing much of anything on a Sunday) is substantially different to that of Edinburgh, which is itself different from that of London and the south-east.
This is (at least partly) why attempts to define some universal “Britishness” tend to be so poorly received – they always smack of Londonites trying to unilaterally redefine British culture for everybody else.
Fair point about Scotland. I guess in that respect I was guilty of being a Londoner who doesn’t really look North. Though I’d still hazard that Scotland is still part of the British community in the sense I described – we are all still fairly closely tied together, if only through partially tied electoral and funding systems. That of course may change, which perhaps would be no bad thing.
I don’t really accept your point about multiculturalism though. Whilst the UK has never been homogenous it has become markedly more heterogenous in the last few decades. Nor do I think one needs to go to lots of different parts of the country to see this variation. Living in London is probably as good as place to see this as any. Sitting in central London I am only 20 mins from the West End, and 20 mins from the East End. Both between and within those two areas there is a huge variation of culture, both class based and in ethnic origin, and also just in personal taste. Insofar as Londonites try and define Britishness I’d say we’re actually quite sensitive to this variation: if you look at Cameron’s attempt then he concentrates on things, which as Carl said, transcend national boundaries. He doesn’t talk about warm beer, tea and cake, football, Elgar etc etc. Democracy, equality, freedom of speech and so forth are of a wholly different order from that kind of cultural marker.
I’m no great fan of patriotism/nationalism. Nor do I believe there is or should be such a thing as a universal British culture in terms of the food we eat, our practices, our personal moralities. But I do think there is at least broad agreement amongst most people on how we should conduct public life, and I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Barney,
London is probably not a great example, nor any other of the major (or ex-major) ports, which have all seen of a lot of coming and going of different people and cultures for as long as they’ve existed. London certainly has hosted residents from all over the world since the 16th century. I think Dunc above has it right. We’ve always been a mixture of tribes, and have always been a trading nation and so a host to a variety of incomers, going back millennia.
I think Cameron just wanted to point out that the people who come to live in Britain should obey the rules of the country just as you have to obey the rules of the Muslim world while visiting any of the Muslim countries.
Heather,
Of course people have to obey the laws of the country they are in. But nobody is (or at least should be) forced to conform to mere customs should they? I mean we don’t require native-born people to restrict what they do or believe within any set of norms do we? As long as they stay within the law, it’s OK by us. Rather the definition of a (socially) liberal society. Even learning English – someone born and bred in rural Wales shouldn’t have to learn English when everyone in their community speaks Welsh. They might decide it would be useful to learn English, but that’s their choice. Similarly, a fluent Welsh-speaker from Patagonia shouldn’t be required to learn English if they get a job in a (similar, notional) Welsh speaking community. Should they?
Agog: I can’t really be bothered to disagree, not least because I didn’t cite London as an example of increasing multiculturalism. Moreover, I don’t think it really matters to my argument whether it is increasing or not. So I’ll concede the point.
Only in the most general terms – which just about everybody in Europe, most of the Americas, and much of the rest of the world would also agree with. When you start getting into specifics, Scotland and the North are dramatically more left-wing in general outlook than the South, and this seems (to me, anyway) to spring from a fundamental difference in opinion as to the proper nature of society. For example, people up here are much less likely to agree that it’s OK for a very small minority of people to be extremely wealthy, provided nobody’s actually starving on the streets. Sure, everyone will agree that “equality” is A Good Thing in some vague, non-specific sense, but there’s really quite a lot of disagreement as to what it actually means once you try to nail down the details.
On reading back I don’t think my words were very clear. Yes I agree about the differences in political outlook but that is nothing to do with how we conduct public life in the sense that I intended. That is to do with the substantive choices we make in public life. Heaven forbid we should have a national culture with respect to that: one of my greatest dislikes is the claim from some quarters that tax-rises are “Un-American.”
Taken in the context of public life equality means equality in democratic rights, equality before the law, the right not to be discriminate against due to your race, age, religion or sexuality. It isn’t vague at all, though there can obviously be disagreements as to the precise meaning of those concepts and what they entail in policy terms. Such debtate is undoubetdly a healthy part of democratic discourse.
As for it being in general terms which are pretty much pan-European/American and extensively believed in elsewhere: so what? Although some people do, I have nowhere tried to make the point that the British culture is somehow unique or especially admirable above all other national cultures. Nor that it can be readily distinguished from any other culture. If you then make the semantic point of “in what sense is it British?” (which I seem hazily to remember Carl making once) I would answer that it is possessed by the people who live in Britain. Literally, British culture is the culture possessed by the British.
Sorry I’m being slow, I’ll come back to this debate tonight, I’m snowed under – I’ll write a post-length reply to all the comments so far
Barney, the question I’m trying to address here is what “multicultural” means, and whether Britain is, ever was, or should be “monocultural” instead. It seems to me that if you’re going to strip out all the cultural values which define the differences between (e.g.) “Southern” and “Northern” culture (for want of better terms) to such an extent that you can declare the entire civilised world effectively “monocultural”, then the terms have lost all useful meaning. If there is no such thing as “British culture” which could be readily distinguished from any other culture, what would the term “multicultural” even mean in this context?
Personally, I would argue that, whilst there is obviously a diversity of political views within any culture, the limits of what constitutes acceptable political views and the scope of that diversity are important cultural traits, and that they are sufficiently different between (e.g.) the South-East and Scotland that it is reasonable to regard these areas as culturally distinct. (Although, obviously, not as culturally distinct as, say, London and Helmand.)
I would also point out that there is rather more disagreement as to “the right not to be discriminate against due to your race, age, religion or sexuality” in this country than you might like to think.
I’ve been pretty lazy in my terms and exposition. There are at least two senses to ‘culture’ that I’ve been flitting between without properly distinguishing the two. First, there is ‘culture’ in the conventional sense of morals, food, music etc. It can also include beliefs as to what constitute acceptable political views. So really I’m shoehorning into this category everything which isn’t in my next category.
This second category is what I am going to call the ‘culture of political and public life’. This is the series of norms which I described earlier, such as liberty, equality etc
With respect to the first category it is obvious that there is marked variation. It is here that multiculturalism exists. It is with respect to the second that Cameron can argue, and I think is arguing, that there is, and should be, something close to a monoculture, though obviously it won’t be perfectly monocultural.
Re the disagreement as to discrimination yes, I agree, there is obviously not perfect unanimity on this matter. I don’t think it stops that ideal being part of our political culture. If one were to require complete homogeneity then one probably going to render the whole concept of culture redundant anyway. There is always going to be variation.
It seems to me that he (and just about everyone else who criticises “multiculturalism”, although not necessarily you) is using an appeal to the second sense to argue against the first. The whole “debate” is founded on a category error. You yourself acknowledge that “multiculturalism”, as it currently exists in Britain, applies to the first sense of the term – and this is the sense in which I’m arguing that Britain has always been multicultural. In this sense, “multiculturalism” is as British as football violence at a Scotland-England derby.
As for the second sense… Well, lets just say that I don’t see Muslims opposing businesses operating on the Sabbath, nor have I been presented with the option to vote for an Islamist openly theocratic party in every election for the last decade. And I certainly don’t recall senior, mainstream British Muslim clerics publicly excoriating major political parties, the availability of contraception and abortion, and the very concept of tolerating sexual diversity (although obviously there are a some fringe nutters, but nothing really equivalent to “Scotland’s most senior Roman Catholic”). Now, can you seriously claim that Cameron’s negative statements about “state multiculturalism” were intended to be interpreted as a criticism of those examples of people who do not agree with the basic principles of “equality in democratic rights, equality before the law, the right not to be discriminate against due to your race, age, religion or sexuality”?
Could somebody dig my most recent reply out of moderation, please?
My fault sorry
Hey, it’s Friday afternoon. No worries.
Maybe so, but I thought it was *last* Friday
Re the category error, yes I’d probably agree. Although I can’t say I know that much about the debate. As for Cameron, no of course he wasn’t criticising those people – fair point. My argument was never really that Cameron’s overall thesis is sound, simply that his musings on British cultural identity were coherent.
Thanks for the debate, it has been interesting clarifying my thinking on this topic with someone who has clearly thought a lot more deeply about these matters than I have.
It’s a pleasure to be able to discuss such matters in a civilised fashion for a change. You’ve certainly provoked me to develop my arguments more clearly than I previously had done in my own mind.
You’re right that Cameron’s musings could be regarded as coherent, but in the current political context, I find it very difficult to interpret them as anything other than dog-whistles. As with all successful politicians, we have to be mindful of the distinctions between what he says, what he means (or might subsequently claim to have meant, if challenged), and what various different constituencies hear. I find it impossible to believe that that speech wasn’t crafted with at least some thought given to how it would be interpreted by certain less savoury elements of contemporary British political life.
>>Cameron’s use of the word liberal concerned others. Victoria Williams at Labour Uncut wondered if by “liberal” Cameron meant “forcing your beliefs onto others and excluding them from society if they disagree”.<<
When you get down to it – thats what MOST Liberals mean by Liberal.
Dunc: yes, it is nice to be able to talk about politics without the usual vitriol. As regards the calculation by Cameron (and his staff) of the reception of his speech amongst different people I am sure you are correct. He wouldn’t be a successful politician if he didn’t think like that.
Steve Tierney: Yeah they’re almost as bad as the Libertarians…