London is often touted as the world's most diverse city. This is a distinction that makes for a vibrant city life and occasional cultural confrontations, like I witnessed today. I've already described Camden Town as home to various fringe elements of White Culture. But it's also home to Muslims of both African and Arab heritage. This leads to interesting juxtapositions like this one I saw today:
This image was captured in front of the Camden Town Tube station at a 6-way intersection, the area's busiest. It's hard to see from behind the large takeout sign, but there are men and women handing out leaflets urging readers to convert to Islam. This wouldn't be particularly striking except that the women were dressed in burqas, full body coverings worn as a sign of modesty by conservative Muslim women.
Passers-by were overwhelmingly young, overwhelmingly white, and assumably overwhelmingly socially permissive. The sight of English women, dressed in short skirts(the English are nothing if not resilient in the chilly weather,) being petitioned by women clad head to toe in black, save a slit for the eyes is striking, a signifier of the challenge of integrating Muslim immigrants into socially liberal London.
Of course, the presence of Conservative Islam does not pose a challenge itself, nor were the peaceful, if heated discussions taking place problematic. Rather, it was the cultural misunderstanding their leaflets laid bare that illustrated a deeper problem. From their leaflet, sponsored by islam4uk.com:
"Q: Why should I bother finding out about Islam?A: Because Islam really is the Truth, and there is hard proof that invites you to check it and challenge it...Q: The Jews and Christians also worship only one god...A: All these people CLAIM to believe in only one God, but if you look closely at what they do, you will see they worship men and stones and have practices and rules that are made up be men without any evidence or proof that God said so."
In a country where one in ten go to church weekly, a figure that is surely much lower for this neighborhood, worship of the Royals and the gilded trappings of monarchy is far more common. The suggestion that Islam, or any religion is "the Truth" and confirmable by "hard proof"is difficult to accept in the country where empiricism was reborn. The trouble then is that these appeals betray no understanding of the English cultural identity.
A stated aim of Islam4uk.com is the abandonment of "man-made law" in favor of Sharia law in Britain. The Rule of Law, where "man-made law" is supreme over all was first proclaimed in the Magna Carta, written just a few miles from where I sit. The English gave the world the seeds of Democracy, for which the English are rightly proud; how then can a coherent Western nation be constructed in light of this cultural divide?
The American model, which the British have essentially rejected, is laissez-faire. Muslims immigrate, move to Eastern Michigan, and adopt a culture that is open to Western values while hanging on to their Muslim faith. While the hijab, a head covering that leaves the face exposed is common, face-veils much less so.
One would think that this would be the preferred means of assimilation for host countries, but it can result in unsatisfactory cultural conformity and is also difficult to accomplish. Put simply, it is the result of spontaneous assimilation rather than any particular process, and might not be possible in countries that emphasize cultural purity, like France.
The 7/7 bombings were committed by three muslims born in Britain and a British citizen born in Jamaica. The British government was forced to confront Muslims not integrating into British society and chose French-style cultural intervention to do so. What resulted was a government effort, led by Jack Straw, to define "Britishness," a phrase fraught with racial overtones and ignorant of Britain's colonial past.
It is precisely Britain's colonial history that made London the world's most diverse city. By making foreign lands economically subservient to Her Majesty's Kingdom while leaving local cultural norms in place, the UK distinguished itself from other colonial powers. It made both Crown and colony richer and left the ancestors of those colonized, if not the colonists themselves, better off. Indeed, if one had to be colonized, one should hope it be under the Union Jack.
But Britain did not take on colonies as a charitable endeavor, and though one might prefer the Union Jack to the imperial alternatives, maintaining independence is always preferable. As such, Britain's problems with cultural integration were brought on by their imperial past. Though their resort to Britishness ignores this country's culturally tolerant past. I don't expect Britain to embrace a concept of Britishness that includes the burqa or conservative Islam. Nor do I expect conservative Muslims in London to fully accept English history as their own, but both would become more British by doing so.
This is a glimpse of a London most foreigners don't see. Far away from the grand trappings of Westminster and the splendor of London Bridge, immigrants flood into Britain seeking economic opportunity, but unable to integrate themselves into a Western culture that is truly foreign. Just as the British conquered the world, so too must the British allow their country to be invaded by foreigners.
I don't think this spells the end of British culture. Instead it means that the British identity will become more inclusive while the essential institutional elements will inevitably remain in place.
They may have to exercise patience. What could be more British than that?
I'm on my way to South Africa, a country whose history of Dutch and British rule probably challenges the idea that if you were to be colonized, it's best to be colonized by the British. I'll report back soon, once I can give you a more concrete answer.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I agree that incorporating immigrants is a profound challenge, one which few societies do very well. As London, Europe, and the States are facing the challenge of incorporating cultures represented by foreign immigration, cities (and countries) across the developing world are facing the challenge of incorporating rural-to-urban migration on an historically unprecidented scale.
Delhi, a city of so many religions, has its own challenges of social misunderstanding, but the most striking visual divide is not between Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu, but rather the divide between the stately institutions of the Indian government and the gleaming new neo-liberal wealth, those living in and trying to create a 'world-class city,' and the very visual poverty in a city that's nearly doubled in population in the last ten years, as rural Indians leave a damaged agrarian economy and move to whatever housing they can find or build near service sector wage opportunities in the city.
Thanks for the analysis. I hope you'll keep it up.
Excellent post, Mr. Spahn. To describe American immigration policy as "laissez faire" is a trifle hyperbolic, but I do believe that contemporary immigration policy in the United States (or lack thereof) relative to Europe is one of the superpower's greatest global humanitarian contributions.
ReplyDeleteDan, I'm intrigued by your statement that South Africa's history shows that British colonies didn't necessarily have better postcolonial legacies relative to other European colonies. You've been living in India, the world's largest democratic republic. Because it was obviously once a British colony it was left with strong institutions after the British left. South Africa is the richest country (and republic!) in Sub-Saharan Africa. I've been to neither country (and I'm studying immigration policy in Anglophone nations this semester), so I'm really interested in any political structural weaknesses that you've seen as particular to Anglophone developing nations.
I think Nick covered most of what I might've said in response to Dan. But I will note that I agree with Dan that the troubles facing Developing and Least Developed Countries are far graver than those facing those of us living in those that are Most Developed.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do think this issue of cultural assimilation, particularly as a process that we participate in both as citizens of a democracy, but also as social beings engaged with our communities. It's this confluence I find particularly interesting, but of course, it is not, as Dan notes, among the most pressing problems facing our world.
Finally, to clarify my post, I too would not characterize American's immigration policy as Laissez-Faire. America's policies with regard to cultural assimilation, on the other hand, are, but perhaps I didn't make this clear originally.
I meant to say nothing of the British post-colonial legacy, but rather the colonial leagcy of racial division and exclusion, following the classic British divide-and-rule strategy.
ReplyDeleteAs for post-colonialism, Nick, you probably know more than I do. The cynical line in India is that once the British left, the Indians began colonizing themselves. There's a modicum of truth in this, especially today, as the progressive policies of the immidiate post-independence era, designed to use left over British wealth to help poor rural farmers have bit systematically chipped away since the neo-liberal reforms of 1990. In fact, India does have an impressively robust democracy, given its enormous size and really no history of indigenous rule ever before 1947. But, while the poor vote in enormous numbers, the so called middle class, which in fact represents a a very high percentile of incomes, holds a lot more sway. You might look particularly at the shift, at least in Delhi, toward a more powerful and actually activist High Court, which is taking power from the more democratic assembly in order to push reforms in the city to make it a more aesthetic and business-frinedly place for the city's upper middle class and for foreign capital.
South Africa I don't yet know enough to really comment.
To Brad, I don;t mean to undervalue the challenges facing London or the Western world. I think figuring out how to integrate is really serious business, and an increasing challenge across the globalizing world. It takes different forms in different places.