Race Equality and the Politics of Transnationalism in the UK

Keywords: anti-racism, integration, Transnationalism

Pier-Luc Dupont (University of Bristol)

Transnationalism, or ethnic minorities’ tendency to retain active links with their countries of origin, has been on the radar of UK policymakers for some time. Back in 2007, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion’s report Our Shared Future noted how improvements in transport and communications meant that the UK was ‘far more plugged in to events around the world’. While acknowledging that transnationalism can support integration by giving people ‘confidence in their own identity’, the report also expressed concern that getting information from websites and TV channels based in their country of origin may cut migrants off from UK society. More ominously, it highlighted how international conflicts may be ‘played out on UK streets’ and pointed out the ‘emphasis on global issues expressed by the 7/7 bombers’. Without making such a direct connection between transnationalism and terrorism, the Conservative Government’s 2018 Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper warned that the former could ‘present challenges to integration where social or cultural norms overseas differ from British values and influence the way people behave here’. The Strategy illustrated this with the example of marriage expectations which may reduce freedom of choice and the ‘continued consumption’ of (presumably foreign) media ‘incompatible with British values’.

As well as feeding fears of migrants’ ‘otherness’ and forms of cultural racism, which use both physical appearance and cultural or religious practices to essentialise, vilify and marginalise minorities, such representations of transnationalism can provide a basis on which to restrict migrant rights such as the right to reunite with spouses, obtain permanent residency or naturalise. For these reasons, one would expect race equality organisations to actively promote transnationalism and the individual and collective benefits it can bring, as a way of countering the more negative discourses emanating from policy circles. Yet there are signs that even diversity-friendly policymakers and theorists show some ambivalence toward transnational identities and practices. Carruthers illustrates this with Australian multicultural policy, whose very first principle emphasising unity in diversity can be difficult to reconcile with transnational ways of life. Multiculturalist political theorist Tariq Modood has also expressed scepticism toward the idea that ‘we should resist identities that demand a singular loyalty to the nation and should think of ourselves as citizens of multiple places’, arguing instead for the protection and promotion of a multiculturalist nation-building project.

To explore the relationship between the politics of racial equality and transnationalism, between May and September 2021 the UK members of the PLURISPACE team interviewed the leaders of 16 civil society organisations representing the interests of ethno-racial minorities across the UK, in Bristol and in the London borough of Brent. We asked what economic, political or social links ethnic minorities should retain with their countries of origin, how these links can facilitate or impede integration, what they imply for people’s sense of belonging to the UK, and whether leaders were in favour of allowing dual citizenship. Some of the results will be discussed at two stakeholder conferences to be held in London and Paris on the 17^th and the 19^th of October 2022.

Responses revealed complex, multidimensional understandings of transnationalism, be it family-based, cultural, economic, civic or political. They also indicated that respondents remain generally positive toward the phenomenon, though they also perceive some drawbacks in the pursuit of cross-border activities.

By far the most frequently cited form of transnationalism is the maintenance of long-distance family bonds, which the Runnymede Trust characterises as beneficial for mental health: ‘When you’re newly arrived into a country and you don’t understand that country as well, your links to your original country still matter because you draw confidence, psychological safety in what you know.’ This suggests that transnational ties may be especially important for recent migrants. Stand Against Racism and Inequality concurs that ‘if they are in functional, loving families, most human beings want to give back to their family back home, want to stay connected, want to be in regular contact’. Such rights-based rationales are also endorsed by Muslim Engagement and Development, which conceptualises the maintenance of family ties as an integral part of the right to privacy. While recognising that people can enjoy in different ways their connections to their country of origin and settlement, Black South West Network admits that some can feel dislocated and fail to develop a connection to England despite living there for a long period of time.

Cultural forms of transnationalism are mainly justified from a collective perspective as a way of making society richer and more resilient. The Runnymede Trust gives the example of the multiple languages that migrants manage to retain thanks to their transnational connections, and St Paul’s Carnival recalls that Carnival itself would not have happened without economic migrants retaining a cultural connection to their homeland. At the same time, both organisations draw a line between desirable and undesirable forms of cultural maintenance. The Runnymede Trust stresses that female genital mutilation amounts to a human rights violation and should not be preserved in any way, whereas St Pauls Carnival notes how cultural connections can become divisive when they are so strong that they inhibit someone’s engagement with their immediate surroundings.

Two types of transnationalism that are wholeheartedly endorsed are the economic and the civic ones. Stand Against Racism and Inequality points both to the Roman empire and the contemporary Somali community to argue that the most successful societies are those that encourage new arrivals to share their learning, knowledge and experience, and that embrace individuals retaining links with their country of origin. Black South West Network deplores that the talent and economic power of the diaspora community is often misunderstood, and the Race Equality Foundation underscores how the UK’s strength in the food sector is largely down to migrants’ cross-border links. On the civic front, Bristol Multi Faith Forum insists that helping the vulnerable and marginalised in other parts of the world does not make one less loving of the UK. Recounting how British Pakistani women have been designing physical education lessons in Pakistan, the Muslim Council of Britain concludes that ‘where we can give back we should give back’.

Political transnationalism arouses more scepticism however. On the one hand, British Future concedes that it is legitimate to lobby the state on a foreign policy matter, and Voice4Change supports people taking an interest in the politics of the countries where they come from. On the other hand, the former argues that British society should be protected from the ‘hard edges’ of international conflicts, suggesting that the potential rivalry between Hong Kong and Chinese students may need to be managed in UK universities. Similarly, the latter draws a line ‘where there may be attempts to introduce the politics of external countries into the domestic policies of the UK […]. It introduces an element of ethnic tension which is not always helpful.’ The respondent gives the example of Somali communities in different parts of London and of Turkish and Greek communities at loggerheads over Cyprus.

Despite these caveats, all respondents agree that the UK’s permissive approach to multiple citizenships is the right way forward, with British Future stressing that dual citizenship should be ‘actively promoted as normal, acceptable and supported, to actively invite people to consider it’. Like transnationalism more generally, it is most often seen through the lens of an individual right which enables the preservation of multiple identities (Voice4Change) and valued family relationships (100 Black Men of London), sparing migrants from having to make ‘painful choices’ (British Future). Several organisations (Bristol Muslim Cultural Society, Bristol Somali Resource Centre and the Runnymede Trust) point out that this is especially important for the first generation, with the second one potentially being less interested in maintaining the citizenship of their parents’ country of origin. Going somewhat further, Somali Advice and Forum of Information maintains that there is no point in refugees telling their children that ‘home’ is the country of origin when the UK is the only place they have known. For them, despite all the emotional pull international connections may exert, the prospect of a permanent ‘return’ is largely a myth.