Welcome to my 100th Blog. I am encouraged to have continued this far. Thanks to all who have commented and commended to others. This is something of a ‘position paper’ for the Blog. I would love to hear what you think.
100 Up: Defining My ‘Voice’
The 100th blog of ‘Out of Many, One People’ is a good opportunity to reflect on the journey so far. I was pleased when an academic commented that the blog had a ‘voice’ – which I take to mean that it is saying something distinctive, rather than simply reiterating the received understanding of ‘race’ and its role in our society, which I would term ‘progressive’. The terms of the debate were set fairly clearly in the debate between supporters of the controversial Government-sponsored Sewell ‘Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities’ (which I am broadly sympathetic to) and the Runnymede Report which reflected the ‘progressive’ consensus. The recently published IFS report on ’Race and Ethnicity’ as part of the Deaton Review of Inequalities reflects the same, widely accepted standpoint (to be reviewed in the new year). In the course of this blog I will fill out (mainly by disagreement) what I see as the main characteristics of this latter approach, which also influenced the Church of England’s ‘From Lament to Action’ report, as well as the overall mindset reflected by church leaders. So, I will start by outlining the very important ways in which I share common ground with this approach before going on to spell out significant divergences, paying particular attention to the significance of the contrasting understandings for the church’s policies and pastoral practices.
1. Common Ground,
a) Racism in Britain is real.
The recent report on the Fire and Emergency services spelled out the realities of racist behaviour within the force, including its possible cause of the suicide of a staff member. Notoriously, investigations within the police force have revealed similar levels of racist attitudes, behaviour and abuse. In innumerable ways minority ethnic people would record instances of micro-aggressions, of which the recent Lady Susan Hussey/Ngozi Fulani encounter would seem to be a high profile and highly offensive example. Statistics of continuing ‘unexplained disparities’ in employment would indicate the damaging impact of racial prejudice on people’s working experience and prospects.
Further, this racism has its roots in long-tern assumptions of white British superiority, and in an inherent right to occupy powerful, prestigious or prosperous positions. Such assumptions, and their practical outcomes, are so historically embedded that they will not be easily removed. They have been integral to historic British attitudes. Thus the discussion of whether the Royal family (as with any other family) is ‘racist’ is superficial. They will carry such assumptions without any specifically malign intent. The simplistic view that racism can only be consciously deliberate (which, no doubt, with many members of the royal family it is not), rather than unconsciously imbibed from our culture, serves to confuse and debase the debate.
b) Institutional racism is real.
The ‘Windrush scandal’ was a particularly egregious example of an institution either failing to recognise, or, even worse, tolerating a procedure which clearly had damaging and even life-threatening impacts on its victims, without the institution deliberately setting out to have those consequences. Similarly, lying behind the Grenfell Tower disaster was carelessness about the interests and safety of people who were very largely from minority ethnic backgrounds.
The concept of ‘institutional racism’ is important therefore as illuminating how what seem to be ethnically neutral procedures can in the event work against just outcomes for minorities and that therefore the working of institutions is scrutinised to eliminate unjust outcomes. In this respect ‘From Lament to Action’ makes important proposals so that decision making processes in the Church of England have built in procedures to ensure that the thinking of minority ethnic people shapes the outcomes.
c) The damaging impact of slavery.
Large scale migration from the Caribbean that began to fuel Britain’s post-war boom was the beginning of Britain having a substantial minority ethnic population. It was also migration from an area which had suffered most damagingly and brutally from historic British policies of enslavement. The consequences in terms of consolidating attitudes of white superiority on the one hand, and the physical, economic and cultural oppression of the enslaved on the other has had enduring consequences and needs to be built into our understanding of ‘race’ in Britain today, an emphasis underplayed by the Sewell Report.
However it needs adding that whilst migration from the Caribbean was the founding ‘story’ of multi-racial Britain, there is a danger that it is still taken as the normative experience, over against the stories of the many other ethnic groups that have migrated to Britain. Indeed the burst of attention to ‘race’ following the murder of George Floyd has tended to re-focus it as the master narrative in popular thinking (perhaps replacing for the moment the ‘Islamist’ narrative).
2. Superdiversity.
It is in recognising the reality of ‘superdiversity’ that the first cracks in the ‘progressive’ narrative that the story of race as simply the story of racism first begin to appear. Not only is the simple binary of an 80/20 or white/BAME (or UKME/GMH) far too crude to be helpful in understanding Britain as a multi-ethnic society, but also the more detailed nine or more Census divisions (Bangladeshi, African Caribbean and so on) obscure major differences. Within these groups are major distinctions, not just of more specific localities (as between, say, Gujeratis and Punjabis), but important cross-cutting divisions of age, gender, time in Britain, and especially social class.
In order to reflect this complexity that the sociologist Steven Vertovec termed the phrase ‘superdiversity’. He has warned against the danger of only seeing the trees - a variety of different, distinct ethnic groups, but not seeing the forest – a complex tangle arising from not only the multiplication of ethnicities, but also their subdivisions, fragmentation and interactions, not least in bearing ethnically mixed children. One consequence is what he calls ‘radical unpredictability’ – predicting and planning in such a society is increasingly difficult. There are obvious illustrations of this – no one predicted that Britain would have an Indian Prime Minister, or a Ugandan Archbishop, or a black CEO of John Lewis, or that someone of Romanian/Chinese parentage would become an international tennis success. But there are also less obvious unpredicted currents swirling across our society: the sharp increase in Bangladeshi educational success, substantial numbers of Iranians attending Anglican churches, the normalising of ethnically mixed marriages, the sudden ubiquity of black people in tv adverts. The idea that ‘race’ was substantially about poor, powerless, ‘not white’ people being oppressed by rich, powerful white people (which described quite accurately what had happened in the Caribbean) had less and less traction in the very complex multi-ethnic society that had emerged by the 21st century.
One consequence is political: ethnic minorities can not be homogenised into a solid Labour voting mass; much as the Runnymede Trust tried to ignore the differences in educational outcomes between African Caribbean and African children, or that African Caribbean disadvantage was a reflection of class background rather than simple racism. The Church of England, too, continues to be wrong-footed, celebrating the appointment of minority ethnic bishops (Indian) as some sort of response to our lack of impact on minority ethnic (African Caribbean) population. Here too is a failure to think only of people’s ‘race’, and not at all of their ‘class’.
The result of superdiversity is, to quote Vertovec again, the ‘complexity of social identity’ – people do not see themselves as fitting into neat, self-contained ethnic identities. As a consequence there can be very different outcomes, a wide variety of trajectories, as from within different ethnic groups, some thrive, some struggle. Television coverage of the pandemic revealed a surprising number of South Asians who were leading academics in epidemiology; scandals over the abuse of teenage girls in a number of towns, largely by Pakistani Mirpuris reflected a very contrasting South Asian trajectory.
3. Differences of Outcome.
Whilst racism is to some degree the experience of all ethnic minorities in Britain, the consequence of superdiversity and the wide variety of trajectories observable amongst different ethnic sub-groups means that the reliance of the ‘progressive’ account of race in Britain on the single narrative of white racism as the all-determining factor becomes incredible. Fifty years ago it may have been just about possible to see this as a substantial and bonding factor for all non-white groups. Now it is incontestable that alongside racism as a determinant of outcomes, weight also needs to be given to factors internal to the different ethnic groups. Why are there so many successful south Asian Conservative politicians? Why so many African Caribbean women Labour MPs? The two groups tell very different stories of their experience as ‘people of colour’ in Britain, behind which lie not only different histories but different cultures holding different values, making different choices with different outcomes. The attempt of reports such as the Runnymede Trust to flatten these differences into a simple narrative of racism is hopelessly weak.
It is at this point that the ‘progressive’ account of racial disadvantage in Britain as mono-causal – the result of white and establishment racism falls to the ground. Not that this explanation is in any way false, but rather that it is simply incomplete; that the role of culture (in terms of the values, attitudes and choices that it generates) is another important factor in the outcomes. There are, then, two major factors at work in explaining the different outcomes for different ethnic groups – I find Thomas Sowell’s labels of ‘external’ (racism) and ‘internal’ (culture) useful to work with.
Consequences are:
* Quoting statistics and percentages of different outcomes as prima facie evidence of racism simply won’t do. Disproportionate numbers of African Caribbean boys excluded from schools; therefore clear evidence of racism in teachers and the educational system? Not necessarily. There are ‘internal’ factors that need addressing, notably that two-thirds grow up without a father in the home; and that African background boys – not that different visually – are excluded at only half the level. Statistical disparities may be a good servant (alerting us to possible instances of racism at some level) but they are a bad master (alone they do not provide incontestable proof).
* ‘Institutional/systemic racism’ should be used with care. I have already said that the terms are valuable, butthey need to be explicated, not lazily pasted on to any disparity as though they form sufficient explanation. Too often the terms are used to provide a veneer of sociological respectability whilst failing to illuminate how the way the institution or system operates works to the disadvantage of minorities. Disproportionate outcomes are not in themselves evidence of institutional racism. Thus for the Archbishop of Canterbury to simply state that the Church of England is ‘institutionally racist’ without spelling out the processes involved is unhelpful and damaging. It might be taken, unfairly, to imply that the institution has simply taken decisions on the basis of racial prejudice. The reality, which I have alluded to in a couple of blogs, about our failure to adapt in our training of clergy and our pastoral policies was not suggested, nor does it still seem to be recognised, or at least acted upon, by the church. An ethnically complex society requires a high level of ‘cultural intelligence’ in its leaders, so far the Church has made no attempt to build this into the capabilities of its ministers.
* The overall response is that at a national and public level all disadvantage is assigned to racism, and cultural factors left out of the conversation. In effect, in a clearly culturally diverse society, we are expected to assent to the clearly nonsensical assertion that ‘the differences between different cultures don’t make any difference’.
In fact, of course, they do. But as long as we are reticent about assigning different outcomes and ‘trajectories of achievement’ in significant part to the internal characteristics of different cultures, then for so long both society and church will be clumsy and inadequate in their responses.
4. Social Capital.
In terms of identifying what creates different outcomes, I find helpful the phrase developed by the American conservative black economist Glenn Loury of ‘social capital’. What is it that causes large sections of some ethnic groups to prosper, even from the most adverse conditions, whilst others constantly struggle to achieve better conditions. In the USA, why do people from Far Eastern backgrounds jostle for places in the leading universities, whilst Latino students struggle, even though the former are further out from the cultural mainstream? Why do black African background people (including Barack Obama) achieve much more than African Americans?
‘Social capital’ points to the central role of agency – recognising that progress comes from a capacity to learn and adapt, from self-discipline and belief, and the acceptance of deferred gratification – qualities that are often instilled in the very earliest years of life, and therefore where stable two-parenting families are crucial. The evidence is incontestable that children of any ethnicity fare better in such homes. Conversely where there is instability, as especially with not only African Caribbean but also poor English families, then the achievement level of that cohort suffers. Therefore social class can be as important a factor as race in marking disadvantage, with many working class white children, like African Caribbean children, growing up without a resident father and likewise suffering multiple disadvantage. Both the Runnymede Report and the recent IFS report resolutely turn their gaze from considering family structure as a factor in disadvantage, thus blaming school exclusions on racism in the educational system, whilst ignoring the fact that unsurprisingly it is boys from homes where there is no father who find the exercise of authority in school (and also the police) a recurring source of conflict.
In summary, then, if this Blog has a distinctive ‘voice’ it comes from laying on top of the very serious realities of racial disadvantage in Britain matters ignored by the ‘progressive voice’ in race: the complexities generated by the fact that we are now an extremely complicated ‘superdiverse’ society; that the ‘differences in outcome’ for different ethnic groups, and especially sub-groups comes in part from their cultural differences; and that the strength of ‘social capital’ is a major cause of those differences.
5. What Lies Ahead?
Blogs are a work in progress. In many ways my basic outlook has been the same since in the 1990s I became increasingly convinced by conservative black Americans like Thomas Sowell; yet changing situations bring different emphases to the fore. For much of that period the greater need was to continue to emphasise the reality and seriousness of racism, both at personal and institutional levels, but as that has been recognised so the need has grown to emphasise that racism and its damage is not the whole story, and that the increasingly different trajectories of Britain’s ethnic groups (not least the socially very diverse white English group) highlights the salience of cultural differences as a factor in their success. But times and minds continue to change. The manifold complexities of an ethnically diverse world means we can never arrive at an incontestable ‘authorised version’ of what is the case. Ultimately, we can only rely on our own very partial cultural, educational and social experiences, which for all of us can be seriously distorting. What follows are my thoughts on issues that need deeper and further exploration. So, one major and two subsidiary questions.
a) The role of ‘whiteness’.
‘Big’ history is fascinating and elusive. The way global histories have evolved, first separately and then increasingly intertwined over the last two millennia involves critical questions, both for the Christian faith and also for the European (‘white’) societies that played a crucial role in the development of that faith and in bringing about a global economy and communications and information network. Evaluating that history requires a critical analysis of how far what has been done in the name of Christ can be seen as stemming from that faith and how shaped by greed and ambition; what has been the respective importance of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment and secularisation, which together form what might be regarded as ‘whiteness’.
Further, what has been the legacy for all humanity of this tangled ‘white’ history which undoubtedly has had a major, indeed decisive impact on all the other societies of the world? The rise of science and technology, of democracy and dignity of the individual have all largely emanated from a fairly small, concentrated area in the far west of the Eurasian land mass: whether air travel and racial arrogance, the ‘green revolution’ in agriculture and the Holocaust, Parliaments and nuclear bombs – ‘whiteness’ plays a major role in them all. The rest of this century could see a flourishing global economy continuing to lift billions out of crushing poverty, and an increasingly connected technological and cultural world bringing enormous benefits; or it could have billions fleeing from uninhabitable climates, creating destructive battles for scarce and dwindling resources, and an astoundingly wealthy minority seeking protection from impoverished hungry masses. Either way, ‘whites’ will be central to the mix.
I can’t see the future, but as I try to understand the complexities of the past and the contradictions of the present, as a white Christian I need to listen, read and think where I fit; what in my heritage to celebrate and what to grieve over, what to hold fast to and what to renounce. And certainly to thank God for the satisfaction of experiencing faith and life in a society and a world marked by considerable racial and cultural diversity.
b) Two specific questions.
‘Colonialism’ has been a major element in the ‘white’ impact on the wider world. What we once confidently celebrated is now widely castigated. There have been no shortage of critics of the brutality and injustices of colonial rule. But as a process that is now past in its explicit form, the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the colonial era also needs to be brought into the picture: was it, as may be the case in South Sudan, an era of comparative peace preceded and followed by horrendous conflict and killing. Or was it, as with Caribbean slavery, an unending story of wealth stolen and lives brutalised. The jury, of course, will never return with a united verdict, but the issue needs serious, richly informed rather than polemical debate.
Consideration of the colonial legacy also raises a further question, about reparations. Given that much of the wealth of the West (but what percentage?) came from Empire, what reparations ought to be made, most specifically to those nations that were formed simply for the slave-grown materials they produced? Further, as is now rightly coming to the fore, what to all those parts of the world condemned to increasing climate instability and impoverishment in large part because of two centuries of western industrial activity?
As with every blog, I appreciate comments, criticisms and responses, and thanks to those who have done so. With this one especially I would value push-back from those who think I have misrepresented the situation. I believe that the distortions of the ‘progressive’ voice – the reluctance to take seriously the differences between ethnic groups, the failure to consider black disadvantage as mainly a form of working class disadvantage, ignoring the crucial damage caused by absentee fathering – are damaging to the prospects of ethnic minorities, most of all African Caribbean young people. Debate is needed.
This is an excellent blog. I like the way you avoid simplistic statements and conclusions but uncover the many layers involved. Much of what you say here could be further expanded by students of research in intercultural mission. It is worth giving this piece additional exposure, perhaps even publishing in the Church of England Journal for Intercultural Mission (CEJIM).
This is a substantial and important essay..It deserves serious discussion both inside and outside the church. I nroadly agree with the approach, and want to respond when I have time in depth with some questions about how to develop policy and mission strategy in the light of such a framework.. A few years ago I published my Temple Tract "the revnege of the racists" https://williamtemplefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Greg-Smith-Revenge-of-the-Racists-FINAL.pdf which explores similar ground. But the debate has moved and we need to address that. Thanks John.. we need more people in this discussion.