Ethnicity and Asymmetry # 16 18/02/2021

Out of Many, One people

Welcome. Please comment and disagree in the response balloon. Sign up to subscribe. Commend to others. And keep safe.

Ethnicity and Asymmetry

When James Brown sang ‘Say it loud: I’m black and I’m proud’ not many people took exception. If Ed Sheeran were to sing ‘Say it loud: I’m white and I’m proud’ it would be widely regarded as ‘problematic’. That is ethnic asymmetry. Certain things are allowable for ethnic minorities that are not allowable for white people.

The examples are legion. Consider churches. If a Church of England parish church, in an area of growing ethnic diversity was to continue with very traditional English ways of worshipping, organising, socialising and relating without adapting to the changed context, even though not explicitly excluding people, it would nonetheless and rightly be accused of institutional racism. It was operating with a norm of ‘Englishness’ which was unresponsive to the surrounding cultural diversity. On the other hand ‘ethnic’ or ‘diaspora’ churches carry on their life and worship within the parameters of their specific culture without any expectation, let alone rebuke, that they ought to be adapting to the diversity of cultures – not least of the English – which surround them. Expectations are asymmetrical.

Haringey and other Councils support a local Turkish Cypriot Community Association. Other ethnic specific local groups are the West Indian Cultural Centre and an Irish Centre. But not an English centre. Given that in Haringey ethnic ‘minorities’ now outnumber the English population do the English ‘minority’ also have the right to receive ethnic specific provision?

When some church members organised a Caribbean evening someone asked why we didn’t have an ‘English evening’? This blog attempts to give an explanation.

1. Why Absolute Ethnic Symmetry, or blindness to race, is not desirable.

Whatever may be the changing proportions of ethnic groups in an area, for the following reasons the English should not expect the same treatment as other ethnic groups:

* We need to recognise the vulnerability of immigrants.

Arriving in a different culture and adjusting to its ways is an unsettling and challenging experience. Inevitably people seek out others of the same culture, language and religion to draw on their support and learn from their experience. As part of this long process of adjustment it is right that there are venues, even officially funded ones, where people can gather. Thus much of the growth and strength of the burgeoning diasporic churches is that they provide the balm of cultural, linguistic familiarity in a strange, and at times possibly threatening environment.

* Minorities face racism.

People have needed a safe space where they can feel safe and welcome, both from obvious rejection and even violence, but also from a variety of micro-aggressions which can simply mean that some places are best avoided. So James Brown’ song was asserting the value of his identity against those who would deny it. Ed Sheeran doesn’t face that pressure (so singing ‘I’m ginger and proud’ would have a slight degree of traction).

* History has not given Britain a level playing field.

In some parts of the world immigrants have arrived with advantages in wealth, skills and capacity. The south Asians who settled in East Africa in the early twentieth century are a clear example. But it is not so here. Immigrants arrived from poorer countries, and certainly in the case of the Caribbean, countries impoverished by British slavery. It is right that ethnic groups, particularly disadvantaged ones, have places where they can attend to their own concerns, for example with supplementary or mother tongue education. In an unequal society it is right that statutory bodies make provisions that will enhance the life chances of ethnic minorities

2. Why Total Asymmetry, or preoccupation with race, is also wrong.

It is possible to read the story of white peoples’ relationship to the rest of the world in a way which suggests that white privilege is so entrenched in our society that not only is ethnic symmetry not possible but rather that it is intrinsically wrong. What is required is the systematic deconstruction of white dominance. Such a perception, undergirded by Critical Race Theory (CRT), sees whites and people of colour (the formative context is the USA) as clearly demarcated entities, formed by their highly unequal histories. Accordingly, both the recognition of past injustice and present redistribution of power must flow from white to black. In this context, any move to consolidate white identity or provide distinct facilities would be perverse.

The problem is that expressions of uniform white privilege over against ‘people of colour’ in Britain doesn’t map well on real situations. During Donald Trump’s first impeachment, British viewers were surprised to hear the case against him made in a strong Geordie accent by a US security adviser, Fiona Hill. Hill said that she migrated to the USA from her native Durham because she believed her accent militated against a successful career in Britain. Is Hill’s background ‘privileged’ over against, say, Kemi Badenoch MP, born in Wimbledon to a GP and university lecturer, and educated in Britain, Nigeria and the USA? 

Substantial numbers of white people in Britain do perceive themselves as disadvantaged and underprivileged. Whilst the counter claim that ‘white lives matter’ is simply to ignore the above factors that have created asymmetry between white people and ethnic minorities, yet it can not be assumed that the Conservative/Brexit success in ‘red wall’ constituencies in 2019 didn’t reflect substantive social and economic grievances that need addressing.

3. Living with Ethnic Asymmetry

So given that the identity claims of white and minority ethnic people are asymmetrical, the following four principles are offered as helps to navigate the complex, confusing landscape:

a) Accepting that change unfairly but unavoidably distributes pain.

The swifter travel that the motorway provides for most of us brings noise and disruption to a farmer’s home and land. HS2 lowers the attractiveness, and housing value, of a nearby village. Similarly, we should hear the views of those for whom the onset of ethnic diversity has been unwelcome. On the one hand that includes those who feel pain at the loss of traditional homogenous white communities; on the other hand, the pain of those who find themselves born to be part of a visible and at times rejected minority. Life is not fair.

b) Recognising white grievances.

When the 75th anniversary of the end of World War 2 was being celebrated last year, amongst the mementoes were old pictures of street parties celebrating the end of the war. Whatever relational tensions and hostilities there might have been in the streets under the surface, the pictures showed happy, united, ethnically homogenous people rejoicing together. I believe it is legitimate to lament that loss. Last spring television showed heart-warming pictures of people lining their streets to clap for the NHS. But on my ethnically very diverse street the turn-out was sparse and scattered. Diversity can lose people the value of close, neighbourly community that often has taken many years to forge.

The failure to recognise this as a serious and genuine loss - though, as argued in (a) above, a possibly unavoidable one – suppresses grievances that deserve a respectful hearing. ‘Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities’ by Eric Kaufmann (Professor of Politics at my alma mata, Birkbeck College, London - a book mainly for devotees of hard-core demography) is probably the most thorough analysis of how white people have responded to the rapid rise of ethnic diversity. One passage describes a heated conversation between Margaret Hodge MP for Barking and two white local women. Kaufmann’s conclusion refers to ‘The double standard inherent in today’s anti-racist taboo (i.e. the proscription against expressing majority but not minority identities)’ (p 170, italics mine). 

Our society’s facile optimism that all problems can be solved means that we have to ignore and suppress any genuine sense of loss at the decline of ethnic cohesion amongst some white communities. Because it is known to be insoluble we want people to be silent. Ruling the expression of loss out of court, Kaufmann suggests, merely leads to a swing to far right parties, who blame the immigrants.

c) Respecting white identity.

Failing to recognise proper grievances has the corollary of not respecting identities. David Goodhart’s ‘The Road to Anywhere’ (see last week’s blog on ‘Nobodies yet Somebodies) delineated the contrasts between ‘Somewheres’ – basically people discussed above – and ‘Anywheres’: those for whom rooted local identities have ceased to be of importance, as a result of university education, professional mobility, and an outlook on life that welcomes cosmopolitanism and diversity. Ethnic change has impacted the two groups differently – for one, less expensive plumbers; for the other, wage-flattening competition.

‘Anywheres’ are generally comfortable with the dilution, even disappearance, of ethnic identity, and happily locate themselves on a broader cultural canvas, where they enjoy Senegalese music, Iranian films, and Malaysian stall food. Yet paradoxically whilst downplaying the salience of English cultural identity, they nonetheless celebrate minorities that express, even consolidate their own identities – thus the double standard anti-racist taboo that Kaufmann identifies above. The assumption that all ‘Somewheres’ should ultimately morph into cosmopolitan ‘Anywheres’ is arrogant and oppressive. 

Yet English (or British) nationalism ought to be celebrated, both as a bond that unites people and a focus for identifiable virtues. For many immigrants the rule of law, the opportunity for advancement, the freedom from oppressive authority are all benefits to value; benefits that overall outweigh experiences of racism or the occasional failure of institutions. A recent international survey of which nations were most trusted ranked Britain second only to Canada. Whilst a sick nationalism can lead to the sort of behaviour that makes us anxious every time our supporters follow an England football team abroad that should not inhibit a rightful pride in the country that we live in.

d) Knowing that ethnicity is not ultimate.

However, when all due consideration is given to the value of English ethnicity, nonetheless it is not central to our identity. Our Christian destiny is to be part of the multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language worshipping Jesus, the Lamb of God (Rev 7:9). It is not an amorphous ‘cosmopolitan’ multitude – identities can still be recognised within it. The impetus of the Christian faith is always to drive us towards loving relationships with those who are culturally different from us.

The consequence is that for the present we sit lightly to our ethnic identities, we might say that ultimately we will all be more ‘Anywhere’ than ‘Somewhere’. I think it is reasonable for Anglicans to question ‘ethnic’ churches as to why they are not making more vigorous efforts to become multi-ethnic. Whilst for English Christians that means accepting that our present context requires a ‘double standard’ where English identity is less foregrounded than other identities. Being the majority and ‘host’ community requires a posture of welcome and acceptance as part of our trajectory to be the multi-ethnic people of God.