[symple_box]
Yousfi Yassir is pursuing a Master program in “Culture and Linguistics” at the University of Ibn-Tofail in Kenitra. [/symple_box]
The so-called “Brexit,” a vote in the United Kingdom (UK) on whether to stay or to “exit” from the European Union (EU), was also a referendum on multiculturalism – and multiculturalism was rejected. On June 27, 2016 51.9% of United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union while 48.1% voted to remain. Multiculturalism, as the prominent Pakistani scholar Tareq Modood defines it, “has a variety of meanings; it is useful to begin by identifying some of them in terms of three different levels” (Modood, 2015). Modood believes that multiculturalism is firstly a body of political ideas or theories. Secondly, there is also the level of multiculturalism as policy and state action, whether at a national or local level, or sometimes civil society initiatives. Then Multiculturalism is associated with the degree of the notion of the climate of opinion. In this vein, the political ideas and ideals of shared peace and prosperity across the EU have increasingly butted heads with the political climate of opinion in Europe. The Brexit was the first referendum to pass across Europe that reflects a longing for greater economic determinism and political sovereignty at Modood’s first and second levels of multiculturalism, and a dangerous slide towards nationalism and anti-multiculturalism at the third level. This paper will first explore the Brexit from Modood’s three levels of multiculturalism. Secondly, I will argue what multiculturalism can learn from interculturalist authors, analyzed through the lenses of their approaches. Thirdly, I will explore what impact this referendum will have on British multiculturalism.
The key issue that can explain taking this decisive decision is the economy. The UK economy is the 5th largest in the world and the 2nd strongest in Europe after Germany. British macroeconomics professor Patrick Minford said, “leaving will eliminate manufacturing, over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely, we would most likely eliminate manufacturing but this should not scare us” (BBC debate)[1]. Yet, Sadiq Khan countered, “It scares them, it scares their family, and it scares me” (BBC debate)[2]. In this line of reasoning, the aforementioned shows that even though the UK chose not to join the common currency, there was little danger of the euro currency directly cratering the British economy or vice versa as the euro’s dismal performance still provided extra ammunition to Brexit supporters. It is well-established that the unemployment rate shot up above 20% in countries like Greece and Spain, triggering a massive debt crisis as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. Eight years later Greece and Spain are still suffering from unemployment rates above 20%. The perception is that job growth and investment in poorer European countries comes at the expense of the same benefits on a domestic front. The Brexit referendum was a way for people who felt marginalized – the economically depressed British lower and middle classes – to feel empowered.
While, purportedly, the intellectual case for the Brexit is economics, the emotional rationale is heavily influenced by immigration and fear of the “other.” EU law guarantees that citizens of one EU country have the right to travel, live, and work in other EU countries. British people have increasingly felt the impact of this rule since the 2008 financial crisis. The Eurozone has struggled economically, and workers from countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania (as well as EU countries like Poland and Romania that have not yet joined the common currency) have flocked to the UK in search of work. “In recent years, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans have come to Britain to do a job,” British journalist and Brexit supporter Douglas Murray said. This, he argues, has “undercut the native working population” (Timothy, 2016). The UK absorbed 333,000 new people, on net, in 2015, a significant number for a country of Britain’s size (Timothy, 2016). Immigration has become a highly politicized issue in Britain as it has in the United States and many other places over the past few years. Anti-immigration campaigners like Nigel Farage, the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party, have argued that the flood of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe has depressed the wages of native-born British workers. Some voters are also concerned about immigrants using scarce public services. By identifying something concrete to blame for the UK’s economic woes, Farage and others have put a face on an abstract concept like multiculturalism – the face of the non-English immigrant to the UK. Perceptions of the “other” in homogenous societies are easy targets when economic growth is stagnant or worse recessive. Austerity programs are crushing the poorest and most vulnerable in the British society, the same people who voted to leave the EU are the nationalists who have been economically displaced by globalization.
The question again is: Does the “leave “side has a point when they say that the EU is out of touch? As stated by John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, the answer is yes. He added that “Time and again we have come against a break wall of European commission officials who are unelected, uncountable, who just say we don’t need to listen to you, we don’t have a mandate for the people we are not accountable.” (Al Jazeera) [3]
This was also manifested very clearly in the Greek crisis last year where you had the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker saying to the people of Athens: “Don’t believe that if you vote for a new party or a new agenda you can change anything, there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties” (Al Jazeera)[4]. Participating in debates across Europe, Hilary gave voice to the outraged and disenfranchised masses from across Europe directed at the contemptuous European elites and bureaucrats in Brussels. Another facet of the Brexit vote is an effort to reclaim democracy at home.
In contrast with the goals of the EU – to promote shared peace and prosperity – personal experiences have not been so rosy. The Brexit can be viewed more as a rejection of the political elites both in Britain and across Europe, rather than an overt rejection of the goals of the EU. The Brexit and similar nationalist calls in France and across Europe are calls for a decoupling of peace and prosperity. While no one in Europe wants to relive the horrors of World War II, a total economic and political union was impossible and the EU struck an imperfect balance between collectivism and individual sovereignty. Many of those who turned out to vote in this referendum did not vote in the UK’s general election last year, but were prepared to come out this time around because they felt their vote would actually count.
The Brexit reflects a dangerous nostalgia for a return to the age of British reinvestment and manufacturing, self-government, and ultimately homogeneity. People in Britain use coded language to talk about people of other religions and nationalities, and that has made the debate ugly with covert hate speech masked by overt pleas for economic and governmental determinism. A number of politicians switched sides late in the game, but that did not push the remain side over the exit one.
We currently suffer from an impoverished life-world and that problem must be overcome. However, the answer does not lie in the destruction of systems (especially the economic and administrative systems) since it is they that provide the material pre-requisites needed to allow a rationalized lifeworld. Jürgen Habermas has dealt with the problems created by system rationality. “State is the biggest creator of problems. It is bureaucratic, legal, and rational. It interferes in the life-world in such a big way that the individual remains a fractured entity,” Habermas stated. Habermas does not think that the problem can be solved in this way. Rather, efforts should be made to solve the relationship between the system and the life-world. Similarly, Dr Najib Bounahai, a university professor at Ibn-Tofail University, stated in one of his lectures on ‘Postmodernism’ that “nothing is bad with modernity. The only negative side about it is that it is conveyed by military means.” “Modernity came with the idea of happiness, but again the question is: are we really happy?” (Bounahai, 2016).
“Multiculturalism is underlined by a paradox. To what extent can you achieve unity in diversity? And to what extent can you achieve sameness in difference? I can only feel you as a Christian and white when you acknowledge me as a Muslim and black” (Bounahai, 2016). On another philosophical different approach of struggles for recognition, as stated by Habermas, one must recognize the other as the agent, the author of their own laws and identities; their personal life project. “A correctly understood theory of rights requires a politics of recognition that protects the integrity of the individual in the life contexts in which his or her identity is formed.” (Taylor, 1994). Yet, the relevance of these differences that are imposed and created by collective identities must be debated in the public sphere, and this is separate from the rights both to belong to and to reject a culture.
Parekh (2000) described multiculturalism as a ‘community of communities’. But how can we have a community of communities? David Cameron, along with many European leaders, advocates that multiculturalism has failed. But what is the alternative? If the immigrants are the issue, that if solved, will systematically solve all problems, then can Cameroon kick all immigrants out from Britain? It seems that there is a slight connection between colonialism and multiculturalism. This tells that colonialism has not been ended. It rather develops another form of colonialism: ‘neolonialism.’ Its manifestations are seen obviously in the economy and diplomacy which is all about “the art of trading and/or talking to people you don’t like”. (Bounahai, 2016)[5]
The next step I now turn to, the Salmane Rushdie Affair, was much dramatically dramatic and conflictual, but was absolutely pivotal to British multiculturalism. Modood points out that British multiculturalism properly takes off with the Rushdie affair. “It is, I believe, the single most important event in the story of British multiculturalism,” Modood stated. Multiculturalists in Europe say that the act of condemning British Muslims should be halted. They say that the condemnation and blame should be replaced by the act of listening to them and discussing with them to hear their point of view (The same rhetoric we hear so often after each terrorist attack, ex. Charlie Hebdo, Bruxelles, etc). They need to have a dialog with Muslims about what the problem is: Why are they angry, why do they feel hurt? Don’t condemn, don’t resort to an absolutist, unrealistic conception of freedom of speech, listen. That was the first thing multiculturalists said (CRE, 1990; Parekh, 1989). Rushdie’s affair went beyond ethnicity to religion more squarely. While Jews enjoyed protection under racial equality Muslims did not. As Modood perfectly summed it up, “the need to, not just protect Muslims from discrimination and incitement to hatred, but to positively recognize them and institutionally accommodate them in a multiculturalist way” is the right way to go.
All in all, the Brexit referendum was a challenging and debatable step British people took in the last century. It is not necessarily about equality, it is about seeing the benefits of the EU. Do they see them on daily basis or not? That is what has pushed a large number of people on one side or the other side. Still, ‘multicultural education’ needs to do much work to promote principles such as inclusion, diversity, democracy, inquiry, critical thought, value of perspectives and self-reflection. In this nexus, the by far most urgent political problem is that the increase witnessed in the number undocumented migrants, including legal migrants, will be the next debate question. What kind of policies, recognition or representational structure might draw these almost invisible and unjustly treated people into the official problematic of multiculturalism? (During, 2005). That’s a core question to which cultural studies can make a contribution.
References:
[1] The BBC’s EU Referendum “Great Debate” – Questions on immigration, the economy & sovereignty.
[2] The same debate.
[3] Inside Story – Al Jazeera English. What’s the future of the UK in the wake of Brexit?
[4] The same program on Al Jazeera English
[5] This was stated by Professor Bounahai in several lectures about Postmodernism and Culture (2016).
Bibliography:
Bounahai, N. “Postmodernism & Culture.” Postmodernism. Ibn-Tofail University. Kenitra. 14 April 2016. Lecture.
Charles.T. (1994). Multiculturalism. New Jersey. Princeton University press. 160.
During, S. (2005). Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Modood, T. (2015). What is Multiculturalism and what can it Learn from Interculturalism? Ethnicities, 11-20.
Timothy, L. (2016, 06 25). Brexit: The 7 most Important Arguments for Britain to Leave the EU. Retrieved from Vox Business & Finance.
