Immigrants, Minorities and the Multiculturalism Debate

This sixth seminar in the 2010 series, ‘States in Change: National Identity in the UK and Japan’, provided two very different perspectives on the subject of ‘Immigrants, Minorities and the Multiculturalism Debate’. Multicultural Britain has a long history of immigration and integration of foreign nationals into local communities while Japan’s traditionally homogeneous society, for historic and economic reasons, has followed another pattern. Our speakers explored the issues facing the UK and Japan with respect to immigration policy, political and economic circumstances and social attitudes. They looked at the history of immigration in both countries and considered the impact of multiculturalism on national identity.

Summary

In setting the context, Professor Ian Neary, the chair, began by stating that since the 1990s Japan has become more like the free market economies of the UK and the USA resulting not just in a free flow of capital and goods, but of labour too and is likely to come to resemble the UK in its immigration patterns as well.

 

The first speaker, Alison Parks, went on to focus on two issues – the first being what it means to be British and how this has changed over time and the second being attitudes towards ethnic minorities and immigration. She stated that her main data sources were the British Social Attitudes Survey, carried out every year since 1983, and the International Social Survey which targets over 45 countries.

 

Providing context, Parks noted that the UK’s restrictive immigration and asylum policy changed in 1998 with the adoption of the Human Rights Act. Resulting in a spike in immigration particularly from other European nations this led to negative press attention. During this period of higher immigration, the impact of 9/11 (2001) has been key.

 

In talking about British identity, Parks pointed out two key distinctions – that relying on ‘ethnic’ dimensions including ancestry and bloodlines, ie that which is ascribed not acquired, versus that which focuses on civic qualities which can be acquired through learning the national language and showing respect for national institutions and citizenship.

 

Surveys taken in 1995 and 2003 demonstrated a trend towards more people emphasising civic over ethnic qualities in conceptions of national identity. This rose from 23% to 32% and reflected clear generational differences with the younger generations emphasising inclusiveness.

 

In going on to talk about ethnic minorities and immigration, Parks remarked that a growing number of people surveyed up until 2001 declared themselves to be not prejudiced (rising from 64% in 1983 to 73% in 2001). A downward trend then ensued, not down to levels seen in the 1980s but notable nonetheless and reflecting increased anxiety about ethnicity since the ‘war on terror’ and immigration levels.

 

In concluding, Parks said that while a majority in the UK consider being British as having an ‘ethnic’ component an increasing proportion don’t. While the downward trend in racial prejudice ended in 2001, a key factor in the desire to reduce immigration is education, with 88% of non-graduates versus 67% of graduates admitting to being a ‘little prejudiced’ and 90% versus 50% fearing the UK would begin losing its identity if more Muslims came to live here.

 

The second speaker, Dr Abe, started by positing a couple of questions which would inform her talk – is Japan as a nation-state changing? Is Japanese nationalism rising? She went on to explain that 1990 saw the emergence of a new immigration category, that of the ‘Nikkei’ or those of Japanese descent born and bred outside of Japan, allowing them easier access to Japan. Consequently, a rise in those from Brazil, Peru and the Philippines ensued but no integration policy was conceived as it was assumed that their Japanese blood line would ensure an easy fit, ignoring the fact that many spoke no Japanese and were unskilled, so were first in the line to suffer redundancies. In 2006, 16% of the population in the town of Oizumi in Gunma was shown to be Brazilian; 30% were non-Japanese residents reflecting the impact of the new immigration law.

 

The number of Brazilians and other ‘old comers’ (to differentiate from the more recent waves of immigrants) has been decreasing since 2008 as a result of the economic crisis. In order to limit the number of Nikkei and ‘non-Japanese’ speakers entering Japan, the government has mooted the idea of a language test and a new style identity card issued by the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice rather than at local municipal government level.

 

Issues surrounding the ‘old comer’ Koreans are thorny in that they are culturally assimilated in most cases, but if they have not become naturalised Japanese they are required to keep an Identity card with them at all times. That they are culturally assimilated may result in a stronger incentive for them to protect their minority identity but the fact that they have to seek to become naturalised despite being born in Japan attracts criticism. These Korean residents are now more actively being encouraged to take up Japanese nationality.

 

In conclusion, Abe said that while trends in Japan are not significantly promoting multiculturalism, Japan is not becoming more nationalistic.

 

The comments following the talks covered a range of issues including the fact that the questionnaires used by Parks are conducted in English meaning that more British born respondents rather than recent immigrants were surveyed, the extent to which the media is reflecting attitudes and stirring up issues, the aspects- if any- of the British approach which may be useful to Japan and – on a positive note – the fact that at community level in the UK people tend to have good working relations with foreigners and that those in multiracial areas tend to be much more relaxed towards multiculturalism.

コントリビューターについて