Varun Uberoi

Inclusive Britishness: A Multiculturalist Advance

Scholars argue that policies of multiculturalism in different countries are in retreat or in question. Britain is often used as an example of this, and leading British politicians and commentators often criticise such a policy. Yet a long-held multiculturalist goal has been to make Britishness more inclusive and this is something leading politicians were until recently uncommitted to. We use interviews with politicians who have served in this government and the last, the measures they have introduced, their media contributions, speeches and policy documents, to show that they are now committed to this goal. At a time when a British policy of multiculturalism is said to be in retreat or in question we identify a multiculturalist advance and show that this raises a range of difficult questions about government approaches to ‘Britishness’.

Social Unity in Britain

Social unity is a challenge for all culturally diverse polities. Britain is no different, as the race riots of 2001 illustrated. Political theorists agree that social unity is important because it is a necessary precondition for social justice, peacefully resolving disputes and effective democratic institutions. Political theorists claim that shared identities can help to foster social unity in culturally diverse polities. Conspicuously, however, many have shied away from the one type of shared identity that has a proven track record of fostering social unity: national identity. This is because national identities are hostile to cultural diversity. I, however, argue that all alternatives to national identities are likely to be ineffective sources of social unity. I try therefore to describe a type of national identity that can foster social unity through cultural diversity. I call such a national identity a multicultural national identity, which Britain would do well to adopt.

Has multiculturalism in Britain retreated

S cholars who are critical and supportive of multiculturalism note how it is in ‘retreat’ or in question in different countries as leading politicians are rejecting it. Britain is often cited as a place in which this retreat or questioning occurs. Certainly British politicians and commentators criticise multiculturalism, but it is often unclear what precisely is being criticised. Even when critics say that what they are discussing is ‘state multiculturalism’, nothing is said about what this is, or how it differs from ‘multiculturalism’, and neither is self-explanatory. We therefore begin by specifying three inter-related ways in which multiculturalism can be understood, before going on to show why it is questionable to claim that leading British politicians are distancing themselves from any of them. We then identify the superficial nature of what it is that these leading politicians are actually rejecting, and the benefit, even for critics, of adopting our understandings of multiculturalism.

Feeling and Being Muslim and British

Great Britain was created through the 1707 Act of Union.1 Few shared a notion of ‘being British’ at the time; but by the end of the Napoleonic Wars the British increasingly defined themselves against the French and through their belief in Protestantism and free political institutions (Colley, 1996: 58). Expanding empire and industrialisation enabled them to also see themselves as internationally powerful and economically dynamic (Davies, 1999: 876). But the Empire dwindled as did Britain’s economic prowess. Protestantism became less salient and it was difficult for the British to see themselves as they once had. Familiar aspects of Britain began to disappear and unfamiliar ones emerged. Large numbers of racially and culturally distinct immigrants arrived and settled, Britain joined the European Economic Community and calls for the ‘Break up of Britain’ emerged (Nairn, 1977). Politicians, scholars and commentators began to discuss the nature and future of British nationhood and by the 1980s and early 1990s, these dis-cussions were increasingly nuanced (Plamenatz, 1974; Swann, 1985; Gilroy, 1987; Powell, 1991; Miller, 1995). After devolution, it became clear that for some, their English, Scots and Welsh identities were more important than their British ones and this intensified these discussions (Curtis and Heath, 2000; Bechhofer and McCrone, 2007).

National Identity – A Multiculturalist’s Approach

Abstract ‘Multiculturalists’ in Britain have advocated the importance of national identity since the 1970s, yet we know very little about the ways in which they do so. In this article, I will examine how one of Britain’s most prominent multiculturalists, Bhikhu Parekh, has advocated the importance of national identity since the 1970s. I will show that Parekh’s way of thinking about national identity is distinct from the ways in which other prominent thinkers discuss such an identity, and valuable, as Parekh has insights into what such an identity is and why we should value it. This article will thus identify a previously unnoticed, distinct and valuable way of thinking about national identity, which comes from a multiculturalist in Britain.