Multiculturalism, part II

Almost a year ago, while he was still just the lowly Exchequer, Gordo proposed all immigrants/migrants coming to the UK, seeking citizenship, be "obliged" to undertake community service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6399457.stm

According to the BBC article, this was meant to assist in the integration of these people in British life. But this really amounts to a sort of slave labour, which conjures up images of a colonial past that ought not be repeated, yet seems likely to be. This idea of earning citizenship through a series of tests and labour means British citizenship has more value than any other citizenship in the world, and thus is an exclusive club of individuals who conform to a certain standard. Of course every country has a system like this, and thus we are all guilty of perpetuating this mentality of national superiority.

If we really believe in equality of nations, cultures, ethnicities, etc., then why care where the individual comes from? Why make it a requirement that this person become someone different in order to join your team? What difference does it make if this individual lives in your community as a Nigerian, a German, a Russian, an Argentine, a Malay, or a Brit? Does the small book confirming your national identity really make you a different person?

The conservative and liberal multiculturalists would argue it does. For the conservative, this is a symbol of your inferiority to the hegemonic culture you are trying to join; for the liberal this is a symbol of how you are different, and though its ok to be different, you are only 'authentic' in your Nigerian/German/Argentine/Malay-ness if you have the papers to prove it.

The Resistance/Critical approach is to view these "common" identities as both artificial and racist. The borders put up and maintained by the conservative/liberal approach amount to a desire for ideological purity, and a belief that even though there are multiple identities out there, they can/should never mingle beyond basic recognition of the other.

The critical response is to break the border down entirely, not only through a rejection of borders, "common" identities, and purist immigration policies, but also by fostering an understanding of these "other" individuals as individuals (from their own perspective). Furthermore, a critical multiculturalist will try to see themselves from the perspective of the "immigrant," thereby deconstructing their own position vis-à-vis this individual.

So, for Gordo to suggest there need to be harsher tests and formal labour for those migrants looking for citizenship is a way of forcing a new identity upon them, stripping them of their native one. Of course, this is all presented in a positive light, as the pathway to all the resources and wealth of the West, which is why the individual has left their original home in the first place. So its not meant as a racist, mean, exploitative policy, yet that is what it becomes. What the Americans call "exceptionalism" suggests that because of the clear superiority of a capitalist, democratic, enlightenment based identity, forcing 'others' to adopt likewise, is actually a good thing for the world.

But really, it is both anti-democratic, and anti-diversity.