I am a sports
fan and love watching the Olympics. It
symbolises all the best in the human sporting excellence and dedication and
somehow also represents an opportunity for a pause button (rightly or wrongly)
on world affairs as for about two weeks much of the focus is on the
athletes. I see the Olympics as a great
opportunity to learn and understand from each other, as athletes engage with
people from countries they probably would never engage with (I’m thinking USA and
Iran), and a time for reflection as the Olympic Truce is observed for about 100
days. Finally it is a time for learning
as you actually discover countries that you have not even heard of, but realise
that life goes on outside of the bubble that you are accustomed to. Politics, corporate sponsorship, tickets
aside, the Olympics is probably one of the more unifying shows around the
world.
When the
Olympics was awarded to London, I remember the excitement that greeted it,
followed by the sudden realisation of reality as the next day, 7/7 took
place. In those 7 years, the Olympic
debate and its engagement with communities took a back shelf as security took a
higher priority. For the Muslim
community in particular, the scrutiny on radicalisation and constant obsession
with identity and affiliation, has meant that they have been fighting fires and
seeking justification, which is a shame as a majority of them primarily reside
close to the main Olympic parks and thus should be recipients and equal
partners in the infrastructural regeneration that has so far taken place and
the social regeneration that is anticipated afterwards.
It is tough to
articulate the mood of the country in the run up to the Olympics. The austerity measures have really started to
strangle people and last year’s riots shocked the nation into once again
questioning the disconnect within society.
Add to this, the coalition government’s attempt, led by the Tories, to
artificially construct some sort of British identity and affiliation by somehow
negating multiculturalism, as was apparent by David Cameron’s speech last year
in Munich, and has meant that for many migrant and Diaspora communities, it has
been a period of a few uncertain years.
Now the actual
conversation on multiculturalism is a complex one. Do we talk about multiculturalism in allowing
diversity as a lived experience or one that is a set of policies to manage such
diversity? More often than not we find a
conflation of the two, where immigration is encouraged so that the experience
of a society is transformed by diversity, making it more vibrant and
cosmopolitan, but also there are a set of policies which manage diversity by
putting people into boxes (defining individual needs and rights) and using
those boxes to shape public policy.
What this means
is that conversation takes place in silos where inequalities in social policies
are blamed on the immigrants or one section of the community is targeted as
being the problem or that tackling sections of the community is only done through
a security perspective ignoring underlying social contexts.
The discussion
of identity and belonging also cannot take place in a contextual vacuum. If
people feel continuously marginalised by social exclusion or perceived
discrimination, they will feel reluctant to articulate an identity that says
that they belong.
In the last two
years, the debate has been magnified with the Royal wedding in 2011 and the
Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations earlier on this year, where despite the best
efforts to try and carve a ‘British’ identity from them, it was noticeable that
amongst the thousands that celebrated publicly in their localities or in
London, very few came from immigrant communities or were second / third
generation expats. For a large majority of them in particular those coming from
former colonial countries such as the West Indies and the Indian Subcontinent,
a British identity that has strong resonance, affiliation and link with the
Royal family is problematic as it brings into the discussion the painful issues
of colonialism and the past suffering.
Many from previous British colonies are only in the UK because of the
mess that their countries of heritage are in after post colonial independence. However to divorce the Royal family from
British identity is equally to strip it of one of its fundamental pillars. So there remains an impasse.
Hence it was
always going to be interesting at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in
London as to what route would be taken in terms of defining a British identity. Much has been written about the ceremony both
positive and negative. Much to the
dismay of a lot of people, it didn’t acknowledge the well known icons of the UK
nor the empire and perhaps it was felt didn’t represent the old values of the
UK. People complained that the historical sequences were not representative
enough or that the modern day sequences had missed out bits. Equally though
there were people who praised it and felt affirmed by what they had seen. Some of these positive comments came from
people who are normally cynical about anything to do with British identity.
From my
perspective, what I enjoyed most about the ceremony was that it was about appreciating
everyday people who make up the UK and things to do with their everyday lives,
be it music, the health service, their kids.
The people represented were of all colours and all faiths, sizes, gender
and age. It celebrated the inventors,
artists and scholars and acknowledged the activists.
This is what I
think is the most important aspect of the opening ceremony as it gave a most
vivid blueprint for what it means to be British in the modern day. Granted that much of what Britain stands for are
built on empire and history which means there are those who feel apologies
should be made for this or that this should be incorporated in articulating an
identity. However I feel that a 21st
century British identity is one that is made up individuals who have their own
multiple identities. As Amartya Sen says in his book, ‘Identity and Violence’ the key to good
citizenship and social cohesion which are components in a cosmopolitan society
is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several
enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background,
religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic
groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams;
they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and
love different parts of their countries.
Danny Boyle’s piece left me in no doubt of
articulating what Amartya Sen was trying to say. It is
the sum of these individual parts that a strong vibrant British identity can be
borne that has a multi ethnic choir and some one of Asian Muslim heritage doing
the 7/7 memorial dance.
Of course there
is much to be done within social policies, education and community cohesion to
translate that into practice. The
reality is that there are a lot of challenges facing people from their own
contexts and heritage, just trying to break through social inequalities and
make a better life for themselves and their families without worrying too much
about what it means to be British. What
the Olympics Opening Ceremony did was to affirm and appreciate this in the overall
pursuit of the grand vision for the identity. In the end, it has opened another
window not only into the discussion of what it means to be British but has set
a new paradigm for determining British identity, one that has more resonance
with everyday people.
An edited version of this was published in the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment