KENAN MALIK - Living in diversity: On the fear of the Other and anxieties about the Self
Text of a speech by Kenan
Malik at the launch
of Gisèle House at Castrum Peregrini in
Amsterdam
...we need, not so much new state policies, as a renewal of civil society
The fundamental importance of free speech is that it is the very
material of social engagement. When we restrain freedom of expression what we
are really restraining is the capacity for social engagement. But social
engagement has to be a two-way street, or it is nothing at all. Double
standards undermine the very possibility of real engagement. So, finally, let me return to the question that is the title of this
talk: how should we live in a diverse society?
First, we need to recognize how narrow a view of diversity we have
today. And that our narrow concept of diversity is at the very heart of many of
our problem. If we look upon our differences in political or moral terms, they
are often negotiable. If we see them in ethnic or cultural or religious terms, almost
by definition they are not. Our peculiar perception of diversity has therefore
made social conflict more intractable.
Second, we need to combat the pernicious impact of identity politics,
and of the way that social policies have accentuated that pernicious impact.
The combination of the two has ensured that social solidarity has become
increasingly defined not in political terms – as collective action in pursuit
of certain political ideals – but in terms of ethnicity or culture. The answer
to the question ‘In what kind of society do I want to live?’ has become shaped
less by the kinds of values or institutions we want to establish, than by the
group or tribe to which we imagine we belong. From this perspective, diversity
becomes a prison rather than the raw material for social engagement.
Third, we need to recognize that the issue of social fracturing is not
simply an issue of migration or of minority communities. One of the features of
contemporary Europe is the disaffection that many have with mainstream politics
and mainstream institutions. It is one of the reasons for the rise of populist
and far right groups, a disaffection fuelled by a host of social and political
changes, that have left many, particularly from traditional working class
backgrounds, feeling politically abandoned and voiceless, and detached from
mainstream society....There are certainly issues specific to immigrants and minority
communities, but they are best understood in the context of the wider debate
about the relationship between individuals, communities and society. Societies
have become fragmented because these relationships have frayed, and not just
for minority communities.
Finally, a guiding assumption throughout Europe has been that
immigration and integration must be managed through state policies and
institutions. Yet real integration, whether of immigrants or of indigenous
groups, is rarely brought about by the actions of the state. Indeed , the
attempts by the state to manage diversity has been at the heart of many of the
problems.
Real integration is shaped primarily by civil society, by the
individual bonds that people form with one another, and by the organizations
they establish to further their shared political and social interests. It is
the erosion of such bonds and institutions that has proved so problematic and
that explains why social disengagement is a feature not simply of immigrant
communities but of the wider society, too. To repair the damage that
disengagement has done, and to revive what I call a progressive universalism,
we need, not so much new state policies, as a renewal of civil society.
Read the full text:
