This page compares and contrasts the ideologies of integration and multiculturalism, and explains why the CRE believes that social policies based upon the integration model are more likely to produce strong, united communities. We also outline here what we are doing, in practical terms, to help make this goal a reality.

For several years, the CRE has been calling for a critical re-evaluation of the policy of 'multiculturalism', and promoting instead the values of 'integration'. In the jargon of politics, this is sometimes described as 'the CRE's integration agenda'.

The question we are asking, in its simplest form, is, 'has a historic policy of multiculturalism led to a more integrated society or to more polarised communities?'

Many factors can contribute to tension and polarisation. Economic and educational inequality, racism, prejudice and discrimination, differences of culture and belief, and disagreements over foreign policy can all play a part, and it is important that these should be understood. Public policy can make things better or worse. The CRE wants to make sure that policy is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Our aim has been to foster a wide debate, and, partly because the CRE has raised these questions, they are now discussed daily in the mainstream media. The debate has sometimes been heated, and at least some of the heat may have arisen from misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

Top of this page

How we define diversity and multiculturalism

In twenty-first century Britain, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is a welcome social fact: it is undeniably true that Britain is a multicultural society. While there remain big differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan Britain, and differences of opinion over the question of immigration, the fact of diversity is now accepted as a positive state of affairs by the overwhelming majority of people living in Britain.

The policy of multiculturalism is not the same thing, however; it is merely one of various possible political and ideological responses to the fact of diversity. Questioning the costs and benefits of multiculturalism does not imply a rejection of diversity.

Diversity

The CRE has a proud record of 30 years of working to show the ways Britain has benefited historically from its diversity, and continues to benefit today from the contributions made by migrants and their descendants.

But it is clear that the benefits of migration and diversity are not unalloyed; like everything else, there are costs as well as benefits. Greater diversity can lead to greater potential for conflict as a result of our differences, and it is in our common interest to face any difficulties frankly in order to resolve them. No fantasy of a society without diversity has any place in responsible political debate.

Compared with 30 years ago, when the CRE was first created, Britain's demography has changed enormously. Many migrants who came to Britain after the Second World War from South Asia, the Caribbean and east Africa to help rebuild the country have remained here to raise their children and grandchildren. Their descendants were born here, have grown up here and, no matter which cricket team they may support, consider themselves to be British, English, Scottish or Welsh. Immigration patterns have changed greatly, with a high proportion now coming from Europe, particularly the newer member states of the EU. In London alone, there are now 42 groups of over 10,000 people with recent foreign antecedents. There are also nearly a million people in Britain who have defined themselves as of mixed race.

Globalisation has meant that both labour and capital are increasingly mobile, leading to huge demographic shifts. Developments in technology and transport have made it possible for people to base their lives in two or more countries simultaneously (known as 'transnationalism'). All of these changes mean that what we used to call 'race relations' can no longer be understood using assumptions made 30 years ago.

Multiculturalism

There is no universally accepted definition of 'multiculturalism'. What the CRE has questioned is the definition of multiculturalism as a policy, or an ideology, with the following characteristics:

• The reinforcement of a particular group identity is emphasised at the expense of the common identity that comes from a consciousness of membership of the wider society.
• The belief that all cultures are of equal value and must be publicly recognised as such, and that wider society should accommodate other cultures and beliefs without expecting any reciprocation.
• The concept of a group is closed and 'essentialist': groups are defined by adherence to cultural traditions or definitions of ethnicity that are assumed to be unchanging (even if these are disputed within or among groups).
• Policy and decisions governing public expenditure are based on assumptions that the interests of members of a particular group are defined more by their membership of that group than by any other factor, and that group organisations act as representatives of the interests of members of a particular community, even when they lack any democratic mandate.
• Greater emphasis is given to representation through identity-specific community organisations or identity-based political activity than to ensuring participation by members of minority groups in the common democratic and decision-making structures of the wider society.

Segregation

In September 2005, CRE Chair Trevor Phillips raised concerns that social segregation between racial, ethnic or religious communities, similar to the situation in some parts of America, might develop here. He called for action to prevent this before it happens[2].

While acknowledging the generally good community relations in mnay British cities, he pointed out some danger signals calling for attention. These included an increasing segregation in education - both in the exclusiveness of under-16 schools and in the virtual 'colour-coding' of universities (with better-funded institutions tending to have disproportionate numbers of white students and poorer institutions tending to be disproportionately non-white) - and the development, particularly in certain towns in the north of England, of segregated residential districts 'on their way to becoming fully-fledged ghettoes'.

A further concern was the evidence of 'soft segregation' seen in some survey reports: indicating that, outside work, people tend to confine their social and cultural lives to people of their own background, and seldom make friendships across ethnic or racial boundaries.

Since then, a 'State of the Cities' report from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has added weight to some of these concerns with evidence that a higher degree of segregation is associated with lower employment, lower earnings, lower educational participation and higher levels of deprivation.

The CRE intends to commission research to examine whether there is a correlation between segregation and increasing 'tribalisation' of different ethnic groups.

Integration, as opposed to assimilation

'Integration' has, for two generations, been virtually a taboo term.

The development of multicuturalism as a policy in the first place was to some degree an understandable reaction to a disillusionment with policies of the 1950s and 60s, when the aim, said to be 'integration', was really assimilation - the absorption of minority migrant communities into the majority community with no noticeable effect on the culture and way of life of the majority, while expecting that the culture and way of life minorities brought with them would disappear.

The CRE, in public statements^[2], and through its work in Europe, has made clear that it rejects any kind of assimilationist approach, in which minority identities are suppressed in the interest of reinforcing a sense of British citizenship. Creating a common sense of belonging does not mean that other identities cannot co-exist alongside this national identity. Instead it is about how they relate to each other, what accommodations are made in each direction, and which is made the focus of policy and public expenditure, and with what effect.

A two-way process, with three components

Unlike assimilation, integration is 'a two-way street, in which the settled communities accept that new people will bring change with them', while 'newcomers realise that they too will have to change if we are to move closer to an integrated society'^[3]. It is not a process in which new migrants 'are told to leave their identities behind, and to become like everybody else, whoever everybody else is', but rather one in which 'everyone who lives in this country has the right to every opportunity it offers and the duty to make every contribution of which they are capable'^[4].

Integration, in the CRE's conception, has three essential components:

• equality for all sections of the community;
• participation by all sections of the community in the processes and decisions that shape the future of the country; and
• interaction between all sections of the community.

Equality

Equality means that everyone is treated equally and has a right to fair outcomes, and that no one should expect privileges because of what they are. However, it also recognises that, in some instances, there may be grounds for treating people differently in order to create a level playing field.

Equality is one of the three necessary conditions of integration; people who feel they are second-class citizens cannot be expected to integrate. As long as unequal treatment and unlawful discrimination continue to be commonplace, no integration will be possible.

The state has a responsibility to uphold the right to fair and equal treatment of all who live and work lawfully in the country, and it is the CRE's statutory responsibility, under the Race Relations Act 1976, to make sure the law providing for protection from racial discrimination is enforced, and to promote good practice that derives from this law.^[5]

Participation

If people from some groups are not involved in the processes of politics, public appointments and other decision-making structures, our society will never be fully integrated, and we risk perpetuating the inequality that prevents integration. It is therefore extremely important to take measures to tackle this 'democratic deficit', to encourage greater participation by people from under-represented groups in local and national politics, and at lower levels of decision-making, including Local Strategic Partnerships.

Interaction

Finding effective ways to overcome tendencies towards separation and polarisation between different groups is not a simple matter, and there is a need for creative thinking. Much depends on finding a commitment to integration within the affected communities, and work in the education and sport sectors, and with young people, is particularly important.

Crude social engineering measures (such as bussing children to different schools) are neither available, nor likely to work. But through Britain's education-funding system, there may be possibilities to encourage schools to attract a wide range of children rather than to accept passively a continuing process of separation and division, and this is a question the CRE is currently looking at.

'Britishness'

One question in the broader debate over multiculturalism and integration has been whether a more explicit assertion is needed of 'Britishness' as a common national identity - a civic rather than an ethnic identity.

Similar, but not identical, questions apply to 'Englishness,' 'Scottishness', and 'Welshness' - similar, because old assumptions and definitions governing these terms are no also longer adequate; different, because 'English', 'Scottish', and 'Welsh' nonetheless have as much (or as little) validity as 'Indian' or 'Chinese' as indicators of ethnic origin. CRE-funded research^[6] has also shown that there are differences between England, Scotland and Wales, as well as between ethnic minority and majority groups in England, in the ways that both 'Britishness' and the constituent nation identities are typically regarded.

The discussion of Britishness arises from several considerations:

• Old assumptions concerning ethnicity in the definition of Britishness are no longer tenable, and popular culture and consciousness have already moved a long way towards accepting a new and more sustainable 'civic' definition, which accompanies citizenship or other lawful residence in the country, regardless of colour, ethnicity, national origin, religion or belief, or anything else.
• Anyone whose home is in a particular country should be able to feel that they belong in that country. The fact that significant numbers of people from minority groups lack a sense of belonging to Britain, and find it difficult to think of themselves as British is evidence of an obstacle to social cohesion in Britain.
• If, in the pursuit of integration, the emphasis of policy is to strengthen a 'wider', common identity, then what is that wider identity to be? While 'common humanity' might be one possible answer, civic national identity is more likely to be reflected in politics and culture.

Whether 'Britishness' requires more than the simple qualification of citizenship or lawful residence in Britain is a question that remains under discussion. Some, including CRE chair Trevor Phillips, have proposed that a particular set of values, and a consciousness of Britain's particular constitutional and cultural tradition, can serve to define the meaning of 'Britishness' - values such as democracy, freedom of speech, and equality, and 'a tradition of poking fun at politicians, priests and do-gooders' - while Britain itself remains open to a degree of transformation as a result of new influences 'as long as new customs do not conflict with our values'^[7].

This debate is likely to continue.

Top of this page

The CRE's day-to-day work for integration

Using its three tenets of equality, participation and interaction as our guiding principles, the CRE is working in a number of areas to promote integration.

1. Equality

The CRE's law enforcement work is a vital precondition to equality: to define, encourage and, where necessary, enforce good practice in all areas of life to which the Race Relations Act 1976 applies. In both public and private sectors, the CRE is working to achieve a more focused and practical use of the law by employers to reduce racial disparities in rates of recruitment, retention and promotion, as well as in service delivery. The role of the CRE's new statutory codes of practice, in employment and housing, will be an important legacy in this respect.

The CRE's legal work includes monitoring and enforcing the duty to promote race equality that public authorities have under the Race Relations Act - in particular, ensuring that they routinely and robustly carry out race equality impact assessments to make sure that new policies and approaches in any area of their work do not adversely affect people from any ethnic group. The CRE is also encouraging public sector organisations to use the 'good race relations' element of the duty to improve community relations.

• The statutory duty to promote race equality
• The Race Relations Act
• Race equality impact assessment: A step-by-step guide
• Our guide to good race relations for public, private and voluntary sector organisations

Having, in recent years, conducted formal investigations into the prison service and the police service in England and Wales, the CRE is now conducting a general formal investigation of regeneration projects, and the extent to which these are, or are not, contributing to racial equality and integration.

• The CRE's legal powers
• Formal investigations
• Our formal investigation into regeneration

2. Interaction

Work to promote good relations and reduce segregation between communities includes the CRE's Getting Results scheme, under which over £4 million in grants has been given annually to local projects.

• Getting Results: The CRE's funding programme for local racial equality work

The CRE, though its new regional structure, is also working closely with regional government offices, regional development agencies and other organisations to make sure that racial equality and integration become, and remain, key components of their work. Other projects have included the CRE's work in the field of sport, a shadowing scheme launched in partnership with Operation Black Vote, and a summer camps project that took a group of city children from a variety of ethnic groups to the Lake District for a week.

Led by Trevor Phillips, the CRE's role in encouraging a debate on integration and citizenship has had a high profile, and the CRE's bimonthly magazine, Catalyst, has provided a broad forum for discussion by publishing articles by external contributors representing a wide range of opinion. Through its international work the CRE has played an important part in setting this debate in as broad a context as possible.

• Catalyst: The CRE's bimonthly magazine

The CRE has commissioned, funded and published research on a variety of topics, including work on concepts of Britishness and citizenship, and, in the context of local councils' duty to promote race equality, a detailed report into the degree to which local authorities are fulfilling their responsibilities towards Gypsies and Irish Travellers. The CRE has continued to highlight and reward responsible journalism in the field of race and community relations through the Race in the Media Awards.

• Research: Britishness, integration and citizenship
• Gypsies and Irish Travellers: Report of a CRE inquiry
• RIMA 2006: the CRE's Race in the Media Awards

3. Participation

The third component in the CRE's concept of integration is being approached through a series of objectives covering many of areas of work already mentioned - including work through racial equality councils and other community organisations.

These objectives include raising awareness and creating the conditions that will enable people from under-represented groups to participate more in democratic processes and public appointments, ensuring representation on local decision-making bodies, and establishing a knowledge base on social capital and civic participation.

Top of this page

References

1,5. The debate about how we create our path to integration starts here
Speech by CRE Chair Trevor Phillips at the launch of the CRE's good race relations guide, 12 July 2005

• Full text of this speech

2,6,7. After 7/7: Sleepwalking to segregation
Speech by CRE Chair Trevor Phillips to the Manchester Council for Community Relations, 22 September 2005

• Full text of this speech

3. The Isaiah Berlin Lecture 2006
Given by Trevor Phillips, 11 July 2006

• Full text of this speech

4. Speech by Trevor Phillips to the Royal Geographical Society Annual Conference, 30 August 2006

• Full text of this speech