Anthropology Raj

Owing to anxiety about fading glory of the British Empire and how new national identity can be constructed. They started to use multiculturalism as a guideline to construct British citizens. It hadn't been changed in 70s when immigrants were considered inassimilable. In 80s, they attempt to make a new standard to define British citizen. 

However, The multiculturalism isn't flawless. In the process of policy making, the press and the politicians conflated the immigrant issue and the formation of identity, which led the distinct of new immigrants and the old ones ambiguously. The minorities are forced to get into under a hegemony of identification constructed by modern public opinion and liberal policymakers, so that their identities can be valid in British. 

Turning in 1990s, the outline of British compulsory schooling indicates that the government, whether intentionally or not, emphasized(or maybe we should say "create") the cultural boundaries by ethnicity which doesn't necessarily have to be emphasized. In other words, it is the government who strengthen the differences and instruct citizens to be tolerant. What's more is these boundaries are defined by British government, according to old categories used in colonial age, which confuses minorities and assumes minorities can never show allegiance to the host society. The imagined community of British is a imagined cage of identity for minorities. The census reflected that a multicultural Britain is imagined but not inherent. 

I think the author implies a combination of historical imagination of the British empire and a multiculturalism can be seen through education and census. The idea of creating a multicultural nation is a British's attempt to locate immigration, but it also ignores existing minorities. I also argue that this kind of dilemma are resulted from a struggle how British transform itself from an multiple-ethnic empire to a nation-state. And also, it was implied that the British bureau assume minorities' identity would always based and fixed on their ethnic rather than a fact they may born in the nation, neglecting they may already accepted diverse culture. According to this reading, I think we can observe the conflict between government's one-dimensional attempt managing, categorizing citizens and minorities' fluid mixed culture. 

As we all known, a typical imagination of the Britain are composed by the English, the Scottish, the Wales and the Irish, which means the rest of them has a flexible option becoming not an English. But the circumstance has even made Asian minorities identify themselves non-British. According to this chapter, we can realize that Karnal Bhandari's relative has adapted another strategy of identity, being a foreigner and being free. I argue that in certain degree, the state's attempt capturing the identity or origin is in futile. It is never easy. For those who has found themselves hard to located in, identity is just a tool interacting with bureaucratic system and public stereotype. In summary, In Britain, they want to conclude a approach by constructing national identity which is based on ethnic identity, which has slightly problem with White British. However, an enforcement to the minorities in light of the nation-state's imagination of how minorities imagined themselves.

Comments and Questions  

I found this chapter is very interesting and inspiring, and leads me to the following questions.

1. I think Taiwanese government is also being trapped into its own imaginary multiculturalism. In Taiwan there are quite a few of second or third generations of mixed ethnic children whose one of parents coming from South-East Asia. In a recent year, owing to the national plan seeking a stronger relation with South-East Asia, the Taiwanese government found them a potential bridge, setting second native language course in primary and secondary schools. Can I argue this thought of Taiwanese gov as a hegemony assuming these mixed ethnic children would necessarily have certain connection with South-East Asia? Is there any case showing us how to disenchantment this kind compulsory category/definition by official.

2. I read an essay in around 2001, which is about Canadian immigrants who was Zainichi Koreans. According to those interviews, they happily identified themselves Canadian citizen roots of Zainichi Korean and was thankful as Canada gave them opportunity identifying, revealing themselves. Maybe because of being the first generation of immigrants, or maybe because of worse treatment by Japan, it seems they don't have any identity pressure. So is that possible for the new comers to British more easily to accept the category by the British government? Can I say the failure of British government is that this application of category can be dealt with new comers, but not with the old ones?