Home >> Europe >> Great Britain

     Email   Print 

Hybridism: A power relations examination of the Asian Community in Britain

Ronald Elly Wanda - 7/20/2005

Hybridism is a concept that is a direct result of the increasing traffic of cultural globalization, immigration with a mixture of government policy. A prominent cultural theoretical practitioner warns us of the danger of loosely defining hybridization, this he emphasizes is because it entails a deceptively simple-seeming notions, which when examined in detail tend to have plenty of tricky connotations that have theoretical implications.[1] However, John Tomlinson (1999) has defined hybridity as ‘the mi mingling of cultures from different territorial locations brought about by the increasing traffic amongst cultures…’ [2] thus; we can say that the central apparatus of hybridity embeds different people from different geographical and cultural backgrounds mixing together. The resultant mixture of those cultural concoctions is what we can call hybrity. Some writers have argued that it is a negative term because it derives from notions of breeding in plants and animals and is carried forward to the cultural sphere with negative polarities of racial mixing that includes miscegenation.[3]


Assumptions

It is often assumed that the Asian and or indeed the black communities in Britain came here after the period following the Second World War or post 1945. However, there is strong evidence that suggests that before the European colonial encounter in the 15th century, there was an African presence in Britain during the Roman Empire years and other people have argued that black people were here much earlier than that, [4] as for Asians which is essay primarily focuses on, it has been argued that there is also considerable evidence to suggest that they too have been here for the past ten thousand years ago.[5]


Culture

Before delving into the hybridization equation of the Asian and British and English that includes the afro, it is important to define culture in respect to the above and what belonging to a culture means. We all have culture because we live culture thereby reflecting it through our daily actions. It is a historically created system of meaning and significance, or in other words, we can say it is a system of beliefs and practises, in terms of which a group of human beings understand, regulate and structure their individual and collective lives. It is away of understanding and organising human life. Indeed as Professor Bikhu Parekh (2000) contends, ‘the beliefs or views human beings form about the meaning and significance of human life and its activities and the relationships shape the practises in terms of which they structure and regulate their individual and collective lives. [6]

There are many difficulties that one encounters when attempting to measure cultural components; this subsequently makes it also considerably difficult to measure any contemporary cultural phenomenon object or formation whilst seeking to reveal hybridism (if any) within and amongst British communities. This makes it therefore a difficult to engage in a discussion of hybridization of Asians and other British communities. This is because culture is articulated at several levels, however, that is not to say that hybridity does not exist in contemporary British society.

It is possible to argue that societies that share a common language share at least some cultural features in common- a factor that we can see here in England and as well as in communities in France. Else where, the opinion is that every cultural community exists in the midst of others and is therefore inescapably influenced by them. It might also be consciously and unconsciously influenced by their beliefs and practises. At this day and age of globalization, it is almost impossible to think of any culture except perhaps the most primitive and isolated that is not influenced by others. Professor Parekh gives us a good example when he says ‘the culture of classical Athens was profoundly influenced by those of others Mediterranean countries that included Egypt and other countries further east’. [7]

The pictures above show Asian restaurants in Crouch End, a wealthy north London district, it is now common to come across such a scene in almost any urban corner of Britain.

In this connection we can argue that the Asian communities here in Britain have influenced British Society and have themselves also been influenced by other communities within the British society. This is hybdism. When it comes to food, a recent major opinion poll by Gallup found that “Curry” which has its origins in Asia dating around 1700 BC has replaced Fish and Chips as Britain’s favourite national dish. Therefore the aspect we ought to ask ourselves is not whether hybridism has taken place (for it clearly has), but the extent to which it has and who has benefited from the cultural exchanges or the power relations that constitutes the relations.


A demography of Asians in Britain

The total UK population of Asians make up just over 3.5% of the total UK population - about 2,084,000 out of nearly 58,800,000, of these nearly 1.8% are Indian - 1,054,000, 1.25% are Pakistani - 747,000 , and just under 0.5% are Bangladeshi - 283,000. The ratio of Indians: Pakistanis: Bangladeshis = 10: 7: 3. [8]

All people including Asians have a choice of belonging to a cultural community. Belonging to a cultural community is therefore not homogeneous in nature. Some Asian people share all beliefs of their culture and others only a few, others follow certain cultural practises and others don’t. The degree and interpretation of Asian cultures by Asian groups or individuals varies widely. However, it is difficult to quantify or measure how people are committed to their cultures or indeed how much we ourselves are to our own respective cultures. Thus Professor Parekh’s affirmative observation: ‘membership of a cultural community varies in kind and degree and is sometimes a subject of deep disagreement’ [9] bears weight here. The social setting of Britain has discouraged hybridization; this in my view is owed to a number of factors.

Firstly, one writer has made an important observation that Britain has always been a country involved in migration, although in recent centuries emigration has been far more important than immigration. [10] Asian community’s integration in British society has been vigorously restricted by the British State and through subsequent government policies regardless of political leniency (whether Conservative or Labour party).This we can argue has discouraged hybridity and has fostered alienation of the Asian community and other non-white communities in Britain. Historically, there is evidence that shows governments and politicians, neo-fascist political organisations, the mass media, employers, institutions representing the labour movement and sections of the British working class have all acted upon and articulated racist beliefs, and by doing so they have identified Asians and other minority groups as excluded communities. Therefore this “culture of exclusion” that the Asian and other minority racial and cultural groups have faced has led them to be categorized in a certain negative manner, making hybridity almost a one way system, which we can also argue is cultural imperialism.

Ron Ramdin (1999) has argued that it is against this background that migrant workers and their children have been racially categorised. [11] Another contributor, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown a British Ugandan Asian whom alongside her family escaped Dictator Idi Amin’s Uganda in 1972 also notes: ‘like all previous laws passed since the 1940s, the Immigration law was intentionally racist. The rights of non-white Commonwealth citizens settled in Britain ended with this Act. It helped to confirm the feeling that the Tory government could be trusted to keep this country safely and predominantly white’. [12] This as displayed hinders community integration and subsequent hybridization.

In a government survey, immigrant respondents who had not joined British Associations or had not made British friends often cited cultural, linguistic and religious reasons. For instance a Somalia Man when asked said: “No I never tried any (British associations) because of cultural barriers. I am a Muslim and all British people are Christians, so I find it difficult to join any groups. Socialization is often in pubs and clubs, which I don’t go. I also find that there are other socialization processes but are discouraged by the institutes”. [13] Many other Asian men and women cited similar reasons and circumstances. An Iranian man stated that British Society does not offer social integration because of the egoistical attitude of the British people.

Interestingly, respondents when asked whether they felt part of the community where they lived a Kurdish woman responded:

"Do you want an honest answer? Because whenever I go or we go as a family, if I meet people that I don’t know, the first question they ask is where do you come from? So that means you are not part of the community. I can’t stop people from asking question, but I have come to the conclusion that however many years that I stay in this country, I will never be part of this community. I can understand that because I am old enough, but my children cannot. It hurts them”.[14]

In this connection, the above evidence shows in part what the immigrants go through whilst trying to settle in British society and the restrictions and problems that they incur in the process. Hybridization is culturally and systematically restricted right from the start as clearly demonstrated above. The Kurdish woman at best feels that she will never gain acceptance as an “equal” member of community and at worst feels that her children will face similar problems despite the fact they perhaps were born in this society, or might have come here whilst very young. This means that they do not fully understand and therefore do not fully appreciate their home country’s cultural entities and are therefore unlikely to meaningfully engage in it, at the same time their host country (Britain) due to its hostile environment remains culturally discouraging to them. This indeed is a problem that many young Asians people find themselves facing in today’s Britain. This discourages hybridity because the power relations are not equal right from the beginning.
Bikhu Parekh understands the plight facing some members’ within the Asian community in Britain in relation to hybridity, he has subsequently argued that individuals experience cultural conflict when they subscribe to or live by two different systems of meaning and significance either wholly or partially. In the former case the conflict encompasses all the significant areas of their lives, as in the case of an individual who feels deeply drawn both to the traditional Muslim or the Catholic and the modern secular and liberal views of life and is unable to reconcile or make up his mind between them. [15]


Cultural Imperialism

Having discussed some of the problems confronting the Asian community in Britain in relation to hybridity, we can argue that the existing political and cultural order in contemporary Britain has played a significant role in deterring cultural integrations and therefore hybridization in the UK. However, that is not to say that hybridity has not occurred in Britain, for it has. The impact of the Asian community on British society has benefited Britain via many avenues; these have been cultural, economical, spiritual as well as intellectual in nature. The National Health Service (NHS) has been one British Institute that has clearly benefited from the expertise of Asian medical professionals. It possible to argue that had it not been for them the NHS could have collapsed due to staff shortage and lack or expertise in some areas of the medical profession, it is estimated that nearly 40 % of all NHS doctors and nurses are from an ethnic minority, that is largely Asian. Another important contribution has been in the food industry, whereby it has been confirmed that dishes exotic dishes originating from Asia have succeeded in replacing traditional English or British dishes. Curry which we have discussed earlier is such an example. It is now common to see young and old British people buying or ordering Oriental dishes (Indian Curry, Chinese foods, Thai cuisines etc) as opposed to previously popular English gourmets that include roast lamb, stuffed turkey -(that is used during religious ceremonies i.e. Christmas and Easter etc). One can view this as cultural flawed practise, in other words we can say that hybridity at this juxtaposition is exercised by one cultural group (for instance, White English) to temporarily enjoy the benefits or pleasures that another cultural community (the Asians through their exotic dishes) has to offer this creates an unequal cultural power relation in spite of hybridity.

Cinematography and the Film or Movie industry is an emulating cultural tool that we can use to measure the process of hybridization. Hollywood in USA, Bollywood in India or Nollywood in Nigeria or Pinewood Studios in London have all played significant role in transcending cultural materials to its respective viewers all over the world. The hybridization process can be either culturally negative or positive. For instance, Hollywood has produced some films that have culturally ridiculed other people’s cultures such as Tarzan that displayed primitive linguistic genre (…”me Tarzan, you Jane”…). In this film, the character was portrayed as lacking social and cultural skills virtue of his existence as a “jungle boy”, the essence here is that in reality the are people such as the Massai (of Kenya) or the Kalahari bushmen (of Southern Africa) who live Tarzan’s life and unlike Tarzan, they have an excellent social life and a rich cultural history. India’s Bollywood is the largest film industry in the whole world, and it therefore goes without saying that it releases more films than any other film industry in the world. Increasingly however, we are beginning to see collaboration between Hollywood and Bollywood in making films, one recent example amongst many is the film “Bride and Prejudice” where a wealthy American bachelor accompanies his equally wealthy British Asian bachelor friend to India in search for wives. The film falls short on man things; however it does a good job in displaying hybridity in contemporary times. It is possible to argue that both Hollywood and Bollywood are simply exploiting each others film markets, given that we are living in an ever globalizing world, it is easy to see this. However, their marketing exploitation has “hybridal” cultural implications for all who buy their film products. Even in television today, we also see that the traditional and conservative British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is also changing and slowly beginning to reflect Asiatic cultural elements in its programmes. For instance, the comedy sitcom “The Kumar’s at number 42” which appears on BBC two is such an example of British media’s slowly reflecting if not fully accepting that Asians and other ethnic minorities have culturally influenced British society.


Conclusion

Conclusively, we can say that there is a lot of evidence, some of which this essay has discussed that suggests that hybridism exists in the United Kingdom. The evidence available is that the Asian community despite its large contributions in many angles not just cultural to British society; there has been clear State intervention in preventing hybridism and in acknowledging the community’s contributions to United Kingdom. However, lately this is beginning to change; we have begun seeing Asians and black people in popular television “soaps” such as East Enders – however, their characters at best fits in the stereo types, such as thieves or anti social and home wreckers etc. In this case, hybridism in the UK is one that is based on unequal power relations, whereby the immigrant Asian community despite their long stays and contribution in this society have never been fully appreciated.