Caribbean and South Asian identification with British society: the importance of perceived discrimination

Abstract

This article engages the debate on ethnic minority migrant incorporation by examining national identification dynamics among Caribbeans and South Asians in Britain. Caribbeans tend to be more economically, culturally and socially incorporated than South Asians in Britain. Therefore, according to conventional wisdom, Caribbeans should be more likely than South Asians to have high levels of positive British identification. Instead, public opinion data reveal that South Asians have higher levels of positive attachment to British identity. To explain this puzzle, I focus on the ways in which incorporation outcomes are mixed across indicators. I argue that high expectations of discrimination among Caribbeans contribute to lower levels of positive attachment to British identity. These findings suggest that understanding variation among incorporation outcomes is necessary for grasping the complexity of ethnic minority migrants’ lives. Moreover, this article shifts the focus away from migrants’ incorporation progress and towards host-society discrimination.

Keywords:

• British identity
• Caribbean
• South Asian immigrant
• cultural assimilation
• national identity
• incorporation

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was made possible through funding from the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley, and the Ford Foundation along with support from the Families and Social Capital Research Group at London South Bank University and the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London. The author would like to thank Daniel DeHanas, Jonah Levy, E. Barbara Phillips, Alex Street, Natasha Warikoo, Gesche Würfel and two anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the article.

Notes

1. High profile examples include the urban unrest in the UK during the summer of 2001, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 attacks in the US and of March 2004 in Madrid, the assassination of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands in 2004, the multiple terror attacks in the UK since July 2005 and the urban unrest in France during the fall of 2005.

2. ‘Caribbean’ refers to migrants from Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Barbuda, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago. ‘South Asian’ refers to migrants from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.

3. One exception to this trend is the high educational and occupational attainment among Indians (Modood and Berthoud 1997).

4. Large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans and East Asians migrated to Britain in the 1970s and '80s, as well as East Europeans in the 1990s and 2000s (Castles and Miller 2003).

5. In 1951, the permanent Caribbean and South Asian population in Britain was 0.1 per cent of the population (Spencer 1997, p. 3; Storkey et al. 1997). The most recent figures from the 2001 Census show that Caribbeans and South Asians account for 4.6 per cent of the British population. (Indians are the largest non-white ethnic minority with 1.8 per cent of the British population, followed by Pakistanis with 1.3 per cent, Caribbeans with 1 per cent and Bangladeshis with 0.5 per cent).

6. The 1974 Survey on Ethnic Minorities found that 15 per cent of South Asians spoke no English at all compared to 0 per cent of Caribbeans and that only 30 per cent of South Asians spoke English fluently compared to 58 per cent of Caribbeans (Smith 1977). In recent years, South Asians born in Britain have closed this gap and now have English fluency rates close to those of Caribbeans. But there is evidence that first-generation South Asians continue to have lower levels of English language fluency than Caribbeans (Heath and Yu 2002, pp. 18–19).

7. Sikh religious beliefs forbid followers from cutting their hair. Most Sikh men wear long beards and turbans that cover their hair, which has led to conflicts with British employers who do not allow these turbans (Hiro 1991, pp. 129–31). Muslim and Hindu dietary restrictions on meat and alcohol reduce the opportunities for interacting with white British people in pubs and other drinking establishments, places which are often the centre of local social life for Britons. These dietary restrictions have been the impetus for establishing Asian cafes and social clubs, which offer tea, snacks, news, music and culture from Asia, but in turn also create segregated spaces that reduce the likelihood of social interactions between Asians and mainstream white Britons (Hiro 1991, pp. 135–6). The practice of fasting during daylight hours for Ramadan is another Muslim religious difference that can be difficult to adapt to the typical British work and social schedule, as is the tradition of praying five times per day for devout Muslims (Ballard 1994). In comparison, while traditional Caribbean cuisine is different from traditional English, Scottish or Welsh cuisine, it does not operate as part of a larger religious code that governs Caribbeans’ behaviour when in British society or that restricts socializing with white Britons. Furthermore, recent survey evidence suggests that a fairly large percentage of South Asian women wear traditional clothes, including younger women who were been born in Britain (Modood and Berthoud 1997, p. 327). These sartorial practices are a significant visual mark of cultural difference that have caused conflict with employers and provoked harassment in the streets. In fact, recent research suggests that in general Muslims who are more observant of religious rituals (including wearing a headscarf) are more likely to suffer from racial harassment than Muslims who are less observant, while same issues do not arise for Christian Caribbeans (Ameli, Elahi and Merali 2004, pp. 26–36, 41–3).

8. There is also variation in stigmatization dynamics among South Asian groups. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who are Muslim and economically disadvantaged are more likely to be framed as undesirable immigrants in comparison to economically successful Hindu Indians. However, all three groups are generally considered cultural outsiders in comparison to Caribbeans (Hiro 1991).

9. The social psychology literature identifies two levels of variation: contact participation and cultural maintenance. According to this perspective contact with mainstream society is not the only variable necessary for understanding migrant incorporation outcomes but it is the primary variable for predicting whether migrant groups will pursue various forms of convergence or divergence from mainstream society.

10. The most prominent alternatives are the 1994 Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities, the 1997 British Election Study and the 2001 HOCS. The 1994 National Survey of Ethnic Minorities and the 2001 HOCS include a number of questions about ethnic and racial identity, but they do not explicitly pose questions about national identity and commitment to the mainstream political community. The 1997 British Election Study includes a question about whether respondents consider themselves British but the ethnic minority sample size is too small to allow for detailed comparisons of Caribbeans and South Asians.

11. The sixteen different situations were: interacting with a local doctor, local school, housing department, local council, landlord, armed forces, insurance company, bank, job centre, court, crown prosecution, home office, police, immigration officials, prison and probation officer.

12. The cut points indicate where the data were cut to make the four groups that we observe in our data which correspond to the four outcomes on the dependent variable.

13. The lack of statistical significance for socio-economic variables is consistent with recent research which finds that ethnic minorities have relatively high levels of British identification across socio-economic categories (Ameli and Merali 2004, p. 35; Maxwell 2006, pp. 743–4).

14. The lack of statistical significance for religious practice as a predictor of national identification is consistent with previous analysis of the 2003 HOCS (Maxwell 2006, pp. 744–6).

15. In order to estimate the predicted probabilities it is necessary to specify values for the independent variables. For the predicted probabilities according to country of birth, ‘high incorporation’ = professional occupation, possessing advanced degree, friends and neighbourhood not all the same ethnicity, a practising Christian, not a practising Hindu, not a practising Muslim and expecting no discrimination; ‘low Incorporation’ = routine occupation, no educational qualifications, friends and neighbourhood all the same ethnicity, a practising Muslim and expecting discrimination in eleven or more situations. For the predicted probabilities according to level of expected discrimination, ‘high incorporation’ = born in the UK, professional occupation, possessing advanced degree, friends and neighbourhood not all the same ethnicity, a practising Christian, not a practising Hindu and not a practising Muslim; ‘low incorporation’ = born abroad, routine occupation, no educational qualifications, friends and neighbourhood all the same ethnicity and a practising Muslim.

16. See note 7 or Modood et al. (1994) or Nazroo and Karlsen (2003), pp. 926–8).

17. In the 2005 HOCS, 93 per cent of Caribbeans, 91 per cent of Indians and 86 per cent of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis expected no religious discrimination. In the 2007 HOCS, 92 per cent of Caribbeans, 93 per cent of Indians and 83 per cent of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis expected no religious discrimination. These results are more consistent (and more optimistic) across groups than the results for expected racial discrimination in the HOCS.