Multiculturalism Misunderstood?

The British don't get that their way of doing things isn't the only way

The multiculturalism of Britain is truly something that I find impressive. The United Kingdom, with post-war immigration from its former Empire, was confronted with a situation where it had to recalibrate what it meant to be British. In so doing, it has created an unbelievably diverse sense of what Britishness is: whatever your religion, origin, and identity, you can be British.

One event which stood out to me in particular was the admittedly eye-bogglingly-British coronation; where Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and even Catholic (Heaven forbid) leaders blessed the King — the symbolism of such an act was huge.

Obviously, even with an official policy of multiculturalism, there are issues. The fact that sub-national communities exist and live in given areas has led to immense wealth disparities, caused by lack of public investment, education, resources, and opportunities. And, of course, discrimination remains a huge issue. Just because there is a Hindu Prime Minister, it does not mean that any second-generation immigrant is given the same opportunities as Rishi Sunak — especially without a billionaire wife.

My plea, however, is simple: understand that your way of doing things is not the only way. I have found that people from the UK cannot understand that there may be other ways of forging a nation; even with all of its issues, multiculturalism is perceived to be the ‘moral’ way, and any other must be racist or xenophobic.

As a Frenchman, I grew up in a country where a model of assimilation is in place. Essentially, anyone can be a part of the French nation, as long as they place the nation and its values above their personal identity, religious belief, or political affiliation. You are French first, and all your other characteristics second. It’s not asking people to abandon who they are, pop on a striped jumper, grab a cigarette, and a glass of Bordeaux; it’s integrating them into the nation while allowing them to be who they are within it. 

The best example of this is our practice of laïcité, whereby you are not permitted to wear any apparent sign of religious appurtenance at schools or in the civil service — a cross, a star of David, a hijab, a turban etc. Many British people do not understand this, but it is an important part of French culture: the school itself is a sacred place where you are not present as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or other, but as a Frenchman; and the civil service is the incarnation of France, so must therefore incarnate it. To many British people, accustomed to their way of doing things, this may seem like impinging on freedom of faith, but in fact it’s the opposite: it is meant to allow everyone to be united as one, and wearing a religious symbol signals placing your faith above your Frenchness. Far from being the diversity-crushing ideology it’s often painted out to be, laïcité is an open way of nation-building, where you can be as French as anyone else by accepting to be a part of France. Whereas multiculturalism promotes diversity to forge a nation, integration promotes unity under certain values to create one.

Now of course, it’s not a la-la-land either. There are many of the same issues in France as there are in the UK — discrimination, poverty, lack of state investment. There is a real issue with the model of integration not always working very well; certain people live on the outskirts of the nation, finding themselves feeling like they are not a part of it, and hating France for it. There is a lot of work needed to make the system work better.

But just because a system is different does not mean it is better or worse. Obviously, any fair country wishes to have a society where unfair discrimination does not exist, where everyone is equal in real life, and not just in law: you do, and we do. The goal here is the same: to allow everyone to feel British, or French, and be able to live as any other citizen would. We simply have different cultures, and different methods of achieving it.