Race Relations In The Uk Sociology Essay Example

Assimilation

The race relations approach in this period can be better understood by taking into account the political and economic situation. After World War II, Britain faced a labor shortage, and initially, ex-POWs, Polish, and Italian individuals were employed. Research conducted by Joshi and Carter in the 1940s/1950s using parliamentary documents on immigration revealed that some government officials held ethnocentric and racist beliefs. They believed that the jobs should be reserved for 'white' workers because they thought that similarities between 'white' cultures would make it easier to assimilate them. However, Sivanandan (1982) argues that the British government simply wanted cheap labor and had no concern for cultural integration.

The importation of workers from Britain's own settlements and former colonies was seen as advantageous, providing a quick and cost-effective means to obtain cheap labor. As a result, individuals from the West Indies, known as "coloured" people, were encouraged to migrate to Britain in order to fill job vacancies. However, both the government and society viewed these black workers as problematic.

The media placed significant focus on the arrival of 417 Jamaicans on the Empire Windrush in 1948, along with subsequent groups of West Indian workers. This created the perception that most immigrants were "coloured," despite the fact that the majority actually came from Ireland, white Commonwealth countries, and European nations.

Consequently, discussions concerning the impact of growing black communities on British society emerged early during this migration process. These discussions encompassed immigration policies, housing, employment opportunities cultural differences and racial conflicts.

The concerns regarding 'black' immigrants centered around their perceived 'alien' status and 'cultural differences', which was believed to lead to racial conflict. In contrast, no such

concerns were raised about 'white' immigrants. Solomos (1988) and Solomos and Back (1996) argue that political processes and institutions have heavily influenced the racial and cultural issues in British society since the 1950s. This can be seen through various governments enacting laws aimed at reducing discrimination and restricting the number of black immigrants (Sivanandan, 1982). The underlying assumption behind these measures was that by limiting black migration, the 'race' issue would be resolved.

The policy and attitude of society made sure that black migrants were oppressed and excluded. For example, after the race riots in Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was implemented to restrict further black immigration. This period marked the racialization of immigration laws.

The belief that immigration was primarily based on 'race' was in line with the idea that a) an increasing number of black citizens could lead to conflict, and b) the government needed to promote the 'integration' of immigrants into society at large (Solomos 1988). Connecting immigration controls with initiatives for integration marked a significant shift towards addressing domestic race relations and legitimizing the institutionalization of immigration controls at entry points. These two forms of state intervention were considered inseparable, as the reasoning behind this connection was that fewer immigrants (especially black ones) would make integration easier. According to Miles and Phizacklea, a key ideological consequence of this was that 'race' and 'immigration' became interchangeable terms. Therefore, whenever discussions centered around "immigrants" and "immigration," it actually referred to people considered 'colored,' regardless of their specific origin, rather than all individuals entering Britain (1984, p.22). The fear that racial minorities in Britain could face social exclusion following the

civil rights movement in the US prompted a change in approach to race relations during the 1960s (Solomos 1988). This period is commonly known as the second stage in race relations.The introduction of the Race Relations Act of 1965 in Britain was motivated by concerns that social exclusion faced by racial minorities could mimic the impact and disruption caused by the civil rights movement in the United States. The act aimed to address this issue by prohibiting racial discrimination.

The original statute law, which was weak, only prohibited favoritism in specific places of public resort, such as hotels and eating houses. In 1968, a new act expanded the provisions to cover lodging and employment in the UK. As a result, the Race Relations Board was established in 1966 and created the Community Relations Commission to promote harmonious community relations. The UK government later signed the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination in 1969 but with a reservation regarding the Commonwealth Immigration Acts, allowing for continued racialization of immigration to the UK.

The implementation of in-migration controls and subsequent ones has had broad effects on different aspects of law. These controls not only impact immigrants but also have consequences for all black individuals residing in the UK, further dividing society between black and white people. Additionally, these controls significantly affect the civil rights and freedoms of the entire population, leading to a shift in race relations towards an idea of "integration plus." There was an increasing acknowledgment of the legitimacy of diverse cultural practices among black and minority groups, specifically concerning language, religion, and school uniform attire.

Immigrants were believed to have individualities and values that could fit into

a "multicultural" model where different civilizations were acknowledged and respected. In 1966, Roy Jenkins, the Secretary of State, expressed his belief that immigrants should not lose their own national characteristics and culture. He rejected the notion of a 'melting pot' that would mold everyone into the same English stereotype. Instead, he defined integration as equal opportunity and cultural diversity alongside mutual tolerance.

The white British population welcomed this multicultural policy as they embraced universal democratic principles and were open to welcoming people from Commonwealth countries. It was also an acknowledgment of cultural value since the British did not consider their culture superior to that of immigrants, at least on a personal level.

When considering differences between civilizations, it was expected that traditional clothing, cuisine, festivals, and religions would be primarily impacted (Solomos and Keith 1989). In the public sphere, various policy initiatives were implemented to ensure equal access to employment, education, housing, and public facilities. However, the concepts of 'equality of opportunity' and 'racial equality' caused confusion and had limited effectiveness. Solomos (1989) argues that these ideas lack a clear understanding of what constitutes 'equality' for the common good as they are subjective. Furthermore, the government failed to provide clear definitions or guidance on these concepts. Consequently, local authorities struggled to effectively combat discrimination and utilized terms and concepts in a confused, arbitrary, and contradictory manner (Sooben 1990). Ouseley (1984) raises the question of how much progress can be made in achieving "equality of chance" and "racial equality" without involving black and minority communities in decision-making channels. It is also important to note that successive governments did not address this issue through mainstream government departments when introducing

race relations legislation.

The Home Office enforced strict immigration controls, but the responsibility of implementing the law was given to regulatory agencies and the judicial system. From 1965 to 1975, successive governments relied on these bodies to address racial discrimination without much central government support. However, criticism of the limitations of legislation grew in the early 1970s, with calls for a more effective approach in tackling racial discrimination in areas such as housing and employment. Concurrently, various organizations conducted research on racial discrimination and consistently found high levels of it, suggesting that government efforts since 1965 had not brought about significant change (Solomos and Back 1996). Solomos and Back (1996) argue that these findings indicate race relations laws, especially those related to biased immigration controls, may be symbolic political actions that appear proactive but actually achieve very little. By the early 1970s, it became increasingly evident that existing legislation and the powers held by the Race Relations Board and Community Relations Commission were insufficient.

The "Administration of Race Relations Administration in 1975" was a significant investigation carried out by authorities. It resulted in several important points being addressed: 1) the need to broaden the definition of discrimination to include institutionalized or unintended forms, 2) the need to enhance the administrative structures and powers of the Race Relations Board for effective enforcement of antidiscrimination policies and imposition of penalties for offenders, and 3) the requirement for a more interventionist approach from key government departments, particularly the Home Office (Solomos and Keith 1989). Consequently, following these findings, the Labour Government, which had been in power since 1974, proposed reforms to legislation that led to the introduction of the broader

Race Relations Act in 1976. This new act encompassed both direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination involved treating someone from a different race less favorably than another person while indirect discrimination referred to equal treatment in a formal sense that had discriminatory effects on a specific racial group (Miles and Phizacklea 1984). The establishment of the Commission for Racial Equality was a result of the second recommendation aiming at strengthening administrative authority within race relation organizations.

The Commission had three main responsibilities: eliminating favoritism, promoting equality, and reviewing and proposing amendments to the Act. However, within a decade it became apparent that there was a disconnect between the intended purpose and the actual impact of the 1976 Act. Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton riots in 1981 highlighted racism and discrimination against black people as remaining significant sources of social tension. Academic research on the Act's effectiveness identified three main shortcomings: ineffective implementation, failure to achieve desired outcomes, and not meeting the expectations of black communities.

Efforts to eliminate discrimination at the local government level took various ad-hoc forms. Celebratory events such as International Women's Day or festive occasions often incorporate activities like face painting, food (such as samosas), cultural music performances, and traditional clothing (like saris) (Alibhai-Brown, 2000).

Whilst in the public sector offices, there were events focused on developing 'cultural consciousness'. These events aimed to convince the predominantly white population of the legitimacy and values of other civilizations, with the belief that this would eradicate ignorance and intolerance that had led to discrimination and conflict. However, this approach faced criticism for attributing migrant experiences solely to their culture, thus oversimplifying their experiences. The support provided allowed

minority groups to establish groups to meet the needs of the marginalized population. While this temporarily addressed the needs of those excluded from mainstream services, a major flaw of this method was the perception that town council members pitted different cultural communities against each other to compete for support. This caused bitterness among populations, as one community was seen as more privileged than another. Sivanandan (1982) argues that this type of multicultural policy transferred conflicts from the streets to town halls.

Another criticism of multiculturalism is that it lacked a clear definition and gradually became a vague concept (Markusen 2003). Multiculturalism took on various meanings and caused division among different groups within communities. Instead of promoting integration, these groups focused on preserving their cultural identity, leading to what Benhabib (2002) calls "mosaic multiculturalism," where distinct cultures coexist with distinct boundaries. The murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the subsequent scrutiny and Macpherson Inquiry in 1999 (Macpherson 1999) concerning the mishandling of the case by the Metropolitan police are seen as significant turning points in "race" issues (Back et al. 2002).

In this regard, the Macpherson Inquiry was an important landmark in racism. It exposed and brought attention to institutional racism, thanks to Home Secretary Jack Straw(Back et al 2002). Following the recommendations of the Macpherson Report in 1999, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was introduced. The amendments expanded the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover the constabulary and other public governments. Additionally, it allowed for acts done to safeguard national security, immigration and nationality cases, and judicial and legislative acts (RRAA 2000).

The act also established that local governments must adhere to a

general statutory responsibility: to eliminate improper racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations among individuals of different racial groups. Public sector administrations were required to have race equality policies and undertake positive action to eliminate discrimination. Although racism persisted throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were also indications of a new form of discrimination emerging against Muslims and Islam. Anti-Muslim sentiments could be observed not only in mainland Europe but also in the UK.

It is suggested that the roots of Muslim marginality date back to The Satanic Verses issue in the late 1980s. By the mid-1990s, anti-Muslim feelings had become serious enough for the establishment of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia in 1996. The following year, the Runnymede Trust published a report titled Islamophobia: a challenge for us all (1997). This report described the nature of anti-Muslim bias and highlighted how it greatly hindered Muslims from fully participating in mainstream society. Solomos noted in 1999 that the translation of policy recommendations into practice remained uncertain, especially as it depended on broader political agendas.

Integrationist

Since the beginning of this century, the approach to race relations has shifted towards community coherence and integration. Two significant events in 2001, namely the 'race riots' in three towns in northern England and 9/11 in the US, prompted a renewed government approach in the UK.

In the investigations of the perturbations in Burnley, Oldham, and Bradford, various reports were conducted in each country. The Clarke Report, The Ritchie Report, and The Ouseley Report examined the perturbations individually, while the Cantle Report provided an overview of race and community relations on a national level. These reports influenced changes in

government strategy, as directed by the Community Cohesion Review Team Report (2001) from the Home and Office. Just a few days prior to the release of the Cantle Report, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, voiced his concerns about the racial riots in an interview with The Independent. In the interview, Blunkett acknowledged historical divisions and the deep-rooted nature of racial bias. He emphasized the need for a sense of identity and belonging to foster social cohesion. However, the media primarily focused on one of the 67 recommendations made in the report, shifting the concern from the struggles faced by vulnerable communities to one of identity and belonging.

The concept of 'segregation' was used in The Ouseley Report and was central to the Community Cohesion Review Team Report. The opening paragraph of the study illustrated this concern: "While the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas was not surprising, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarization in our towns and cities. Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary organizations, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks mean that many communities operate based on a series of parallel lives." (p9). The concern was that the lack of interaction between different ethnic groups had resulted in ignorance and fear towards each other. It was believed that minority ethnic communities had not integrated into the 'white' mainstream, as evidenced by residential segregation. Multiculturalist policies were held responsible for the existence of 'parallel lives', as they had encouraged cultural communities to become inward-looking and allowed minority communities to self-segregate. The argument of self-segregation was further supported by unexpected remarks from the head of the Commission

for Racial Equality, who stated that Britain was 'sleep-walking into segregation' and that this could result in American-style black ghettos.

This public statement from the head of race relations body provided further support to the argument for self-segregation. At that time, policy makers, politicians, and sensationalized headlines in right-wing media supported and legitimized the claim that the problem was not racial discrimination, but rather the "culture" of immigrants. They argued that immigrants did not want to assimilate and that their culture was too different to integrate with British culture. The level of residential segregation was also seen as an indicator of immigrant integration, and high levels of segregation were seen as a divisive factor. However, there was confusion over the term "integration," with politicians and policymakers using it without explicitly defining it. Most political discussions on integration seemed to assume that it meant conforming to a homogeneous set of norms and values in a monocultural society.

In 2002, a study commissioned by the Home Office (Castles et al. 2002) criticized the usage of the term 'integration'. The writers argued that the term has a range of meanings, from assimilationist to pluralist positions, and needs to be examined more closely in terms of its application to the adjustment processes between minorities and broader society. They also noted that the term is so broad and vague that it can be overused without establishing relevant indicators (p118). The confusion surrounding the term was also reflected in the policies and initiatives of local authorities as part of the community cohesion agenda. Four years after its introduction, at the launch of the government report (Home and Office 2005) titled 'Improving Opportunity, Strengthening

Society' in January 2005, attended by 500 delegates and a distinguished panel, many attendees questioned what it means to 'integrate' and achieve 'integration'.

Delegates questioned the meaning of terms such as 'going to the saloon', 'stop praying', 'shaving off the face fungus', 'sharing some common values while non abandoning what differentiates one from others', and 'how did we cognize when a individual has integrated' (Grillo 2007). These questions reflect the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the definition of integration in the UK.

Segregation

There has been a strong connection between the integration of minority cultural groups and their residential segregation, as acknowledged by policymakers, media, and academics (Kalra and Kapoor 2008). The authors of the Cantle Report state that they do not view integration and segregation as necessarily opposed. However, if communities are completely separated based on factors such as religion, education, housing, culture, and employment, it will lead to a lack of contact and knowledge about each other's communities, contributing to fear and conflict.

(Section 5.7.3). The term segregation refers to the extent to which different groups are separated geographically, economically, and socially, taking into account the impact of housing policies and patterns. In recent years, the claim of 'sleepwalking into segregation' has been challenged and disproven, putting an end to the argument about segregation. Human geographer Peach (1996, 1999, 2009) conducted empirical research on ethnicities and residential forms, which revealed that the levels of segregation are quite different from American-style ghettos. Contrary to Phillips' (2007) claims, Peach argues that the levels of segregation among minority cultural communities are actually decreasing (2009, p17).

Another extensive work by Simpson and Finney (2011) titled "Sleepwalking into Segregation: Ambitious Myths about Race and

Migration" challenges the notion of self-segregation. According to Simpson (2004), demographic evidence contradicts the belief in self-segregation as it demonstrates a dispersion of populations, supporting the findings that most South Asian populations desire to live in diverse neighborhoods. The argument against self-segregation has faced criticism for its narrow focus, which reveals a racial lens. Conversely, the phenomenon of "white flight," which impacted residential patterns in specific areas, has received little criticism and remains obscured.

Furthermore, there is little attention from the media or authorities towards the separation of neighborhoods based on social class, income, and lifestyle, as well as the increasing trend of gated communities for the wealthy (Atkinson and Flint 2004; Manzi and Bowers 2005). Kalra and Kapoor (2008) argue that the formation of immigrant colonies should be understood in a historical context where immigrants settled in areas with established industries. The fact that 55% of Muslim families in England and Wales are concentrated in the two poorest socioeconomic groups (Peach 2006) should be considered within this context. Studies conducted in the Netherlands and the UK reveal that current concerns about segregation and integration overly emphasize cultural factors, neglecting structural barriers that hinder immigrants' integration (van and Liempt 2011). Although allegations of segregation were ultimately dismissed, concern over American-style segregation persisted between 2001 and 2007, influencing discussions on community cohesion and integration.

Communitarianism and community coherence

The New Labour government utilized American policy influencers and ideas to promote racial harmony within communities. According to Robinson (2005), the concept of community coherence was not present in urban theory or public policy prior to 2001. One notable concept was 'communitarianism', developed by Etzioni in 1995. The idea behind this

concept is that communities can uphold the prevailing moral order by exemplifying specific moral commitments, which individuals within the community adopt as their own values and commitments (p1417). In this narrative, segregation is seen as problematic, as communities that establish their own order are perceived to be in conflict with the dominant order.

After the 2001 disruptions and questioning in the West over self-asserting Muslim allegiances post 9/11, there was an emphasis on 'community' as a means of social control. The Cantle Report, according to Robinson, viewed 'community' as the place where cohesion should occur, allowing micro-communities to come together as one integrated whole. In 2001, the Cantle Report drew upon the work of Kearns and Forrest (2000) regarding coherence in communities. Their framework for a socially cohesive society consisted of five key elements, with four of these elements being adopted: a shared vision and sense of belonging for all communities, the appreciation and positive valuation of diversity in people's backgrounds and circumstances, the development of strong and positive relationships between individuals from different backgrounds in workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods. The fifth element was modified, replacing "social solidarity and decreases in wealth" with "those from different backgrounds have similar life chances". As a result, 'community cohesion' is conceptualized as social cohesion at the neighborhood level and community is seen as the place where common social values can be asserted, allowing all communities to work together towards common goals (Robinson, 2005).The concept of 'social capital', popularized by American social theorist Robert Putnam, was also utilized. This concept refers to "social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that enable coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" (Putnam

2000, p22).

Putnam argues that a significant level of cultural diversity exists.