Race, gender and sexuality

Abstract

In this article we analyse the impact of multicultural ideology on struggles for equality in the spheres of gender, race/ethnicity and sexuality. We argue that multiculturalism has permeated theory, policy and action in these areas and that this has resulted in divisions and conflicts between movements for human rights. This has allowed an uncritical brand of multiculturalism to flourish which operates to further oppress already disadvantaged groups. We illustrate our thesis in relation to the violence committed against Black/Asian women through such cultural practices as forced arranged marriage, domestic violence and female genital mutilation. We also note the violence against gay and lesbian people which is sanctioned by some cultural and religious traditions. We conclude that failure to address fundamental questions about possible limits to cultural diversity in liberal democratic societies has implications for the continued oppression of the least powerful and the future of human rights.

Introduction

Homophobia, racism and sexism are widespread in Britain and take overt, covert and institutionalised forms. Following publication of The MacPherson Report of Inquiry into police handling of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, racialised relations have acquired a high profile and the government has pledged action to combat institutionalised racism. No such pledge has been made in respect of homophobia or sexism, despite their extent and effects being comparable to those of racism, up to and including physical violence and murder.

In this article we argue that one of the reasons for this is the dominance of multiculturalism in Britain which has negatively influenced the domains of gender and sexuality as well as ethnicity. This is despite the fact that academics, policy makers and activists in Britain have a long tradition of ignoring the intersections and interactions between these social divisions. Notable exceptions to this are such feminist academics as Allen (1987); Allen, Anthias & Yuval-Davis (1991); Anthias 1992, Anthias 1996; Anthias & Yuval-Davis (1984); Ramazanoglu (1993); Rowbotham, Segal & Wainwright (1979), on gender, race/ethnicity and class; Amos & Parmar (1984); Carby (1982); hooks (1982, 1990), on race and gender; and Anthias & Yuval-Davis (1984), on feminism, gender, ethnicity and class. We illustrate our thesis on multiculturalism with reference to domestic violence in minority ethnic communities; forced arranged marriage; violence against gay and lesbian people and female genital mutilation, all of which highlight wider issues around the control of gender and sexuality. We then analyse some of the theoretical, practical and philosophical reasons why a movement engaged in the struggle for racial/social justice can operate in oppressive ways. These include approaches to the analysis of power, the adoption of unitary definitions of oppression, the material context of capitalism and the logical, sociological and philosophical problems that are inherent in the concept of multiculturalism itself.

Our conclusion is an uncomfortable one: it is that multiculturalism not only exacerbates and legitimises the oppression of already oppressed minority groups, but poses threats to liberal democracy and individual human rights. This is not a popular position to adopt at a time when the dominance of multiculturalism is such that critical voices are silenced, oppressive cultural practices invisibalised and contradictions between the ideals of multiculturalism and those of liberal democracy masked. We believe, however, that it is pertinent to insert a note of caution in the context of a “new” Europe which is currently rethinking its identity in the light of ethnic, cultural and religious heterogeneity.¹ Our aim in doing so is not to deny the validity of much of the multicultural project, particularly in relation to the struggle against racism. Nor is it to propose that monoculturalism is desirable or possible. Even less is it to support what Balibar describes as “social authoritarian arguments for the forcible assimilation of [ethnic] minorities into the national culture” (Balibar, 1991, p. 5). It is, however, to propose that analysis of, and action on, oppression needs to be inclusive of all human rights and to build on awareness of individuals' multiple identities and locations. It is also to note the need for such analysis and action to be sociologically informed in relation to the intersection and interaction of social divisions and the implications of this at the macro-, mezzo-, and microlevels of society.