What is diaspora?
- To scatter
- Bringing together old ideas – about diaspora - with new notions of ‘transnationalism’, ‘hybridity’ and ‘integration’
- And language.
- What are the ‘traditional types’ of diaspora – victim, labour and imperial, trade and business, deterritorialised diasporas
- what other (newer) forms are there? Economic, political (EU border issues). More modern notions that might not ‘fit’ traditional ideas of ‘diaspora’. Even the word seems rather outdated now?
- Diaspora/transnational communities – relationships in the ‘hostland’, relationships with the ‘homeland’ – transnationalism and integration in the homeland

TYPES
Victim
Labour Imperial Trade Deterritorialised New ideas Characteristics of diaspora: key features they have in common
- Dispersal:
- Or – Expansion
- Memory of homeland – idealisation of home.
- Idealisation of the ancestral homeland –
- Development of a return movement to the homeland – transnationalism.
- A strong ethnic group consciousness – based on distinctiveness, common history, common cultural and religious heritage
- ‘troubled’ relationship with host societies – integration – suggesting a lack of acceptance: Mazzucato research below.
- empathy with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement. Aided by electronic communication, Skype, email, facebook, cheap phone calls, cheap flights.
- possibility of a distinctive, enriching life in host countries – integration – those with a tolerance for pluralism, anyway.

INTERSECTIONS WITH LANGUAGE ISSUES

Emerging from diaspora/transnational communities. New forms being researched/written about:

1. Rampton: Crossing.
2. Translanguaging – Blackledge & Creese (2010),

3. Preece – posh and slang in HE, her book/phd thesis looking at this issue.

4. Scott Kiesling (2005) - New Australian English (NAusE) – the way English is spoken in Australia by Greek Australians and Lebanese Australians

TRANSNATIONALISM AND INTEGRATION - the folly of ‘common sense’ pronouncements
- the dangers of making policy by ideology: examples
- so what is this to do with transnationalism and integration of diaspora communities?
- Mazzucato, V. (2008) – is the relationship between transnationalism and integration a mutually exclusive one?

-------------------------------------------------
1. Migrants’ contribution to their home country begs the question of whether this somehow impedes their ability to participate in Dutch society.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
2. Dutch politicians have argued that migrants are oriented towards their home country and therefore invest little in their lives and their surroundings in the Netherlands.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
3. But does it have to be an either/or situation in which migrants’ involvement in their home country necessarily excludes them being interested in conditions in the Netherlands?
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
4. While most studies on migration follow either migrants’ remittance-sending behaviour or their participation in the receiving country’s economy and society, the transnational perspective of this study allowed both to be studied at the same time.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
5. The researchers investigated the question posed above by linking remittance spending from the previous section with spending patterns in the Netherlands. What follows is an analysis of Ghanaian migrants’ objectives and the resulting spending patterns in the Netherlands.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
6. Migrants’ simultaneous engagement in both their home and host country makes development and integration highly related matters.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
7. Ghanaian migrants contribute to Dutch society in a variety of ways, even when some of their objectives are oriented towards Ghana.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
8. Policies that impede migrants from legally participating in Dutch society are creating the largest barrier for migrants to integrate, and at the same time they hamper migrants’ possibilities to invest in their home country.
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
9. Policy towards migration and integration should be based on the reality that migrants are doubly engaged and aim at creating room for juggling between their multiple loyalties. Such policies would create space for more investment in their home country while facilitating a more active participation in the host country with fewer resources being absorbed by the informal economy.
-------------------------------------------------

B. DIASPORA AND BRITISHNESS
What is Britishness? * Gordon Brown (2007) - If this had become a reality, then we might have seen more crossing boundaries – ie teachers learning about the‘new’ communities their pupils come from, and vice versa. * Alibhai Brown, Y. (2000) After Multiculturalism. Foreign Policy Centre: London. * Cantle suggests at pg 161, that the nature of working with the public – teaching, community work, healthcare, social care - sometimes reinforces difference rather than work across boundaries.
Questions to consider * How should transnational communities be national? * How much British and how much of ‘home’? Is it possible to be a little of both? * ‘Duality of identity’

C. MULTICULTURALISM AND COMMUNITY COHESION
A brief history of multiculturalism
What do we mean by the term ‘multiculturalism’? * Is it a goal, a concept, an attitude, a strategy, a value? * We know that when people mention multiculturalism, they are referring to all or some of the following:- race, socio-economic class, gender, language, culture, sexual preference or disability. * Mostly used in reference to ethnicity (or ‘race’). But also extended to other categories of diversity. * How has it come about? * Forcing us to question the degree to which we are in reality an open and democratic society. * Stephen Lawrence 1993 * Kincheloe, V & Steinberg, S (1997) Changing Multiculturalism. Open University Press: Buckingham & Philadelphia. * How it is responded to is determined by our definition of the social world that corresponds to particular social political and economic interests. Thus, power relations play an important role in helping to shape the way people, organisations, groups and institutions react to the reality of multiculturalism. * What do we mean by power relations? * Do we embrace diversity and make it a strength (Olympic bid – diversity a strength), or fear it, and insist that everyone become the same (otherness)? * Melting pot or salad bowl? * Adopting a critical perspective is essential – basically: what are your views and on what evidence are they based? Anecdotal stereotypes? Personal experiences? Measured and reviewed information? News reports? We know that these can be any of the above, but be aware of what you basing your views on. Evaluate those views in terms of their weight and reliability. * The most important thing is to be critical and self-aware in your thinking.

Adopting a critical perspective * Understand how power relations shape human interactions in the workplace, schools and everyday life. * Promote a consciousness of self – understand how and why your political opinions, socio-economic class, role, religious beliefs, gender role and ‘racial’ self image are shaped by dominant perspectives * Promote self-reflection – thinking about how your opinions are formed, the underlying reasoning * Looking beneath the surface of appearances – think: why is what is being said, said? What are likely to be the speaker’s motives? Do you agree with what these are? Why not/why so? Have a rationale for your response – always.

IS MULTICULTURALISM WORKING?

Ted Cantle’s critique (2002) & (2011): Multiculturalism as a catch-all term to mean many different circs – to the extent that it no longer means anything anymore.

Kenan Malik: Multiculturalism as an ideology and a lived experience

Sondhi (2009): on Multiculturalism: ‘the right to be equal was overshadowed by the right to be different’

Multiculturalism: an valuation of the concept * Cantle (2002 & 2011) segregation and separateness in a number of spheres in multicultural societies – divisions based on social class, ethnicity, faith. * ‘parallel lives’ – in which physical separation of different communities was compounded by a complete separation in education, employment and in other spheres. * Separation and segregation proliferates * ‘layers of separation’ Cantle pg 72 – segregation + separation mean that people don’t know about other cultures and rely on myths and stereotypes to define that relationship. Influences how each community views each other and is a denial of any multicultural reality. * degree of difference Cantle pg 78 Which domains of difference should be narrowed and which should be maintained? Languages (but not at the expense of the home language), participating in economic and political activity. Re the others, maintain, as long as understand others and their perspectives * Cantle writes about inequality of treatment to achieve fairness. Ie Sikhs can wear turbans instead of motorcycle helmets * Burial certificates for the dead can be expedited within 24 hours to enable swift burial of certain ethnic groups – Muslims and Hindus. * Incitement to religious hatred, new offence created. An extension of racial hatred. What do we think?

COMMUNITY COHESION: What is it?
Origins: Created in this country in response to the riots in the northern towns of England (Bradford, Burnley and Oldham) in 2001. Appears to have Canadian origins, growing out of the concept of ‘social cohesion’
Intended purpose: Adopted in the British context based on ethnicity and faith: remember this – it is significant. Underlines the necessity to develop shared values across ethnic divisions, as a response to community conflict and unrest.
What is it? Reflects divisions based upon identifiable communities, generally on the basis of faith or ethnic distinctions. It is also complemented by social capital theory of ‘bridging’ between communities. Undermined by disadvantage, discrimination and disaffection experienced by the community as a whole.
A cohesive community is one where: * there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities * the diversity of people’s different background and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued * those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities * strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods.
Source: Local Government Association, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Home Office, Commission for Racial Equality, Guidance on Community Cohesion 2002

C. COMMUNITY COHESION
1. Introduction & historical perspective * Until WW2, immigrant population in Britain was ltd. Post-war, their labour was needed to fuel the post-war re-building and expansion plans. Easiest to draw on ex colonies – education, language made it easier for them to be put to work here. * If you want to look further back in history, there is a good account in Cantle chapter 2 * the ‘immigration problem’ was on the agenda almost from the time the Empire Windrush docked in summer 1948 with over 400 Jamaicans. Black people were subject to abuse and assaults with race riots up and down the country – Liverpool 1948, Deptford 1949, Camden 1954, Notting Hill 1958. * Andrea Levy – Small island: did you read this during the vacation? * In this hostile atmosphere, the supporting immigrants and helping them to integrate and develop positive interactions with the host community v difficult * 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act passed to control numbers of immigrants entering Britain. * General election 1964 – racist in tone – public seemed to prefer the prejudice of one candidate rather than the comparatively liberal views of his opponent. * Galvanised Govt into action RRA 1965 – estd Race Relations Board, to tackle discrimination and take up individual cases. Made in unlawful to discriminate on grounds of race or colour in areas such as housing, places of entertainment and employment. Also created a new criminal office of incitement to racial hatred. Now extended to religious hatred. * RRA 1968 extended and strengthened earlier measures * Despite this, continuing doubt about their effectiveness. Acknowledged in 1973 report by RRB, still a long way to go. * Early integration measures started as early as 1962 with setting up of the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC), two years later National Advisory Council for Commonwealth Immigrants (NACCI), 1965 both superseded by National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI). * At this stage there was a recognition that Britain had become a multicultural community and as a consequence, the host community and minority communities had to establish a rapport – get along with one another. The expectation was for the immigrant to integrate into the host community rather than an acceptance of, and respect for, separate cultures. * More detail in Cantle, suffices to say that at this time, govt and agencies were groping towards ad hoc solutions and policies. Patchy and poorly resourced. Focussed on ‘immigrant welfare’ and ‘trying to allay public fears about immigrants taking jobs and making demands on limited housing’ * Compared to mainland Europe, Britain made an early and more positive response to integration. Netherlands adopted measures in 1981, but US was much earlier – in 1940s and 1950s. * By 1970s diaspora communities in Britain putting down roots, marrying and having children who would only know this country. * 1976 RRA – tougher than predecessors – introduced and defined concepts like direct and indirect discrimination. Abolished RRB, set up CRE – present to this day. More extensive powers, a good legal advice service for those who experience racism at work. More prepared to address underlying causes of prejudice, as well as the discrimination and inequalities that result. Under the chairmanship of Trevor Phillips – whom I am now less bitter about him not winning the Mayoral election (bec Red Ken is not doing too bad a job) CRE is enjoying an enhanced public profile. Trevor Phillips controversial – BMEs should be integrating better, learning English, multiculturalism is dead. Mouth piece for Govt policies? * 2007 CRE merging with the Govt’s new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. * Cultural shift of the Act - recognition that ethnic monitoring and positive action programmes were a legitimate means of ensuring fair play for the BMEs – contrast with French, where monitoring illegal. Focus on the ‘rights agenda’. Focus in the employment field, different performance of black and white communities was most clearly apparent. Ethnic monitoring, a good thing, although need to follow through and use stats to define measures to redress balance. * 1980, 1981 riots in Bristol, Liverpool and Brixton. Scarman Inquiry Report. For the first time, linked the unrest to youth unemployment, also recognising the feeling of hopelessness and powerlessness in the black community. Poor relations bet police and black community. Recommended police training to address this. * Report thin on practical recommendations, so position did not improve. * Riots 1985 B’ham, Nottingham. Reports again refer to deprivation and inner city decay, but attention focussed on policing and poor relations bet police and black community. * 1993 Stephen Lawrence murdered. Report wide ranging but most important is establishing a commitment to tackling ‘institutional racism’. 2000 Amendment Act – duty to promote good race relations. * Significant event: 2001 riots in Bradford Burnley and Oldham involved Asian community. Different character from previous events of unrest:- * largely Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims involved * second generation British born, might have been expected to be more able to claim a stake in British society than their parents * beneficiaries of over 40 years of anti-discrimination and equal opps legislation * latter 2 issues no impact. Riots seen as a product of segregation over many years, lack of meaningful contact between White and Asian communities, and absence of any real stake in their communities * Ouseley (cited in Cantle pg 46) warned about this immediately before the riots. * Focus on equal rights had not been matched by serious attempts to break down barriers between communities, develop better understanding, leading to tolerance and trust. Authorities concentrated on one thing and failed to look at the other. * Failure to promote an open dialogue alongside equalities initiatives has led to disengagement of some sections of white communities. * Lack of justification for actions that promote the legitimate aims of minority communities to have equal opps, have meant that the mainstream/majority communities’ attitudes and values have not been challenged * Joint understanding has not been developed between communities. * Acceptance of new diversity brought by minority communities has been delayed as a result * Some mainstream communities have seen diversity as a challenge to their culture, that is somehow being eroded and diminished, rather than being.

2. Definition and clarification * Cantle (2011) A cohesive community is one where: * there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities * the diversity of people’s different background and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued * those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities * strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods. * But what about the equality programme? * 2005 Govt’s final strategy – Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society. Brought together for the first time race equality and community cohesion approaches into one strategy built around 4 themes:- * tackling inequalities and opening opportunities for all * promoting inclusive notions of citizenship, identity and belonging * eradicating racism and extremism * building community cohesion

3. What did Community Cohesion seek to achieve? * To tackle the ‘fear of difference’ more generally and to enable people to be more comfortable with all areas of difference, including those based on sexual orientation, disability, social class and age. Closing gap in areas of difference also.

* It relies on every one speaking a common language. * What does this mean for transnational communities * Has community cohesion been applied elsewhere? 4. Social Capital * Social capital instrumental in the thinking behind community cohesion – what is it? Used widely in the development of social policy. * Used to describe the extent and nature of community relationships, based on the belief that where social capital is strong, community cohesion will be reinforced. * So what actually constitutes social capital? * Social capital may contribute to a range of beneficial economic and social outcomes including : high levels of and growth in GDP; more efficiently functioning labour markets; higher educational attainment; lower levels of crime; better health; and more effective institutions of government; * Bolstering social capital is seen as fundamental to the success of community cohesion

5. Analysis * Arun Kundnani (2002) – community cohesion is about networks, identity and discourse. Ignores poverty, inequality and power relations – the underlying reason for the riots in 2001. This has not been addressed. * What do you think? * Cantle’s solutions include: cross-cultural contact, inter-faith dialogue, twinning of schools, fostering understanding and respect. Kundnani calls this ‘reconciliation without remedial action’. * Cantle laments the decline of civic pride but offers these towns nothing to take pride in – no hope of economic development or revival of local democracy, just more ‘neighbourliness’. * Where does religion fit with this notion of Britishness? Inconsistencies with govt policy that encourages faith schools. Community cohesion encourages the narrowing of the domains of ‘difference’ between communities. To what extent (if at any) do faith schools potentially undermine this? Kundnani: dangerous breeding grounds for separatism. * What do you think? * Secular education not without its concerns: the powers of self-determination afforded to city academies and free schools.
D. INTERCULTURALISM

* The successor to Community Cohesion – acknowledges the changes in transnational communities since 2001 and proposes a new way of engaging with diversity and difference. * The notion of ‘multiculturalism’ as being unsuccessful and not supported by communities and govts. * Presents an opportunity to consider the development of ‘interculturalism’, which is not defined by ‘race’ and embraces all areas of difference. * Recognises that cultures are more fluid than ever before and the interconnectedness. * Recognises ‘superdiversity’ (Vertovec, 2007) of the world, supports interaction between and within cultures to build trust and understanding, and promotes cultural navigational skills to enable us all to accept and endorse the change process.
Key elements 1. Super/hyperdiversity in the population acknowledged
2. Recognition of the power of transnational/global communities that potentially transcend sovereign govt ctrl
3. Identifies the ‘paradox of diversity’
4. The ‘bowling alone’ hypothesis
5. super/hyper diversity in the rhetoric, but not in the ways of examining the data
6. ‘failure’ of multiculturalism
So, what is it? * goes beyond equal opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences to the pluralist transformation of public space, institutions and civic culture. * Cultural boundaries as fluid but in a state of flux and remaking. An intercultural approach aims to facilitate dialogue, exchange and reciprocal understanding between people of different backgrounds. * The key feature of interculturality, and what differentiates it from multiculturality, is its sense of openness, dialogue and interaction between cultures leading to long term change. * Much more than ‘intercultural dialogue’. In terms of policy development, however, we have not yet seen the full potential * Sondhi (2009) So what then is different about the new concept of interculturality
Critiques

E. NEXT WEEK’S TOPIC

RP apr13