Suburbia – the new melting pot
|
Version 0 of 1. Growing up in an Indian household in a Surrey suburb, we sat, squirming, every time a new Asian family moved into Albert Square. First the Kapoors, then the Ferreiras: you couldn’t fault EastEnders for making an effort, but the result always seemed to be one-dimensional cultural stereotypes. My sister and I would roll our eyes at each new plot turn, well aware that for many of our neighbours, the antics of Walford would be their window into Asian culture. It took the 2007 arrival of the Masoods for the soap – finally! – to star an Asian family whose number one storyline didn’t feel like their brown skin. A dad who’s a postman, not a cornershop owner, a gay love affair, a daughter who tells a misogynist fiance where to stick it: here at last, it seemed, were characters who were plotlines first, Asians second. While inner-city soaps have often been criticised for tokenism rather than depicting the diverse reality of the areas in which they are set, the characterisations of suburbia in popular culture have tended to be completely white. Programme after programme portraying life in generic suburbia, family sitcoms such as 2.4 Children and Outnumbered; cult classics such as Peep Show and The Inbetweeners, have barely numbered a black or a brown face between them. New research by Ludi Simpson and Stephen Jivrav at the University of Manchester suggests just how outdated these popular depictions are. Their analysis of the 2011 census shows the way we commonly characterise diversity in broad-brush term – inner-city melting pots in a sea of overwhelmingly white suburbia – does not hold true in modern Britain. Luton, Slough and Leicester are now, like much of London, “plural” boroughs, where no single ethnic group is in the majority. By 2031, they predict 48 local authorities will become plural, including Reading, Oxford, Cambridge, Coventry and Blackburn. Diversity hasn’t just been misrepresented in popular culture – the political debate about diversity has been no less superficial. For years, the benefits of diversity were evaluated in terms of the economic boon migration has brought Britain, with a failure to recognise the impacts – beneficial and otherwise – it can have on culture and identity. It took the 2001 race riots to shock the political establishment into acknowledging that across some northern towns, different ethnic communities were co-existing, but rarely mixing and with limited understanding of each other’s cultures. This spawned frenetic activity in government around a new agenda of “community cohesion”. I spent a university summer working in the Home Office’s new community cohesion unit: I remember my incredulity on learning they were working towards a community cohesion target, but no one was sure how it was going to be measured. In recent years, the dial has swung from multicultural liberalism to the other extreme: a Ukip-induced populism. As popular discontent with immigration has risen, both main parties have responded to the Ukip challenge with overblown rhetoric, claiming they will crack down on migrants who have taken local jobs, claimed benefits and leeched off public services: a version of the immigrant story that simply isn’t supported by the facts. In an increasingly globalised world, Britain will need to become more, not less, diverse, to remain successful. Politicians need to do more to celebrate the myriad benefits of diversity: not just the economic benefits, or its impact on London’s excellent education results, but the contribution it can make to building the British values of tolerance, empathy and respect. What better way for children to learn about the cultures of those countries in Asia, Africa and South America whose economies will dominate global GDP in the years to come than learning side by side at school with children whose parents come from those countries? There is reason to be optimistic about Britain’s diverse future: many areas of the UK in which Ukip polled best are characterised by lower levels of diversity and it is in London, the UK’s most diverse city, where the most positive attitudes to immigration are to be found. This suggests that diversity can breed tolerance. And politicians need to be braver in tackling some of the difficult questions. Diversity itself has different faces, even across neighbouring London boroughs. In Newham, the largest ethnic group is white British at 17%, with a further five ethnic groups each making up at least 10% of the population. In Tower Hamlets, only three ethnic groups make up a large percentage of residents: Bangladeshis at 32%, white British at 31% and other white at 12%. Are these different patterns equally desirable or should we be championing one over the other? Is it easier for communities to live parallel lives when they cluster in higher densities in the same area? Perhaps this is a moot point, given it’s not – and should never be – within the power of government to tell people where to live. But national and local political leaders could be doing much more to promote integration between different ethnic groups. They should be questioning the ethnic segregation we see in schools in cities such as Birmingham, likely to be a product of “white flight” as much as parents from particular ethnic groups clustering around a school. The case for promoting social mixing in schools has long been recognised – we should not shy away from applying the same logic to ethnically mixed schools. Government should also be doing more to support civil society organisations that promote integration and shared understanding. For example, North London Cares matches young professional volunteers with older people in a way that builds young people’s understanding of the history and heritage of the place in which they live and older people’s understanding of the more ethnically mixed younger generation. The political debate must do more to celebrate the increasing diversity of Britain. But it must also be braver, shaking off the critics’ cries of social engineering actively to promote integration. The 2001 riots should teach us just letting things pan out laissez-faire is a risky approach. |