At NYU Shanghai, I am unquestionably in the minority. It is the first time in my life where I am the one who is foreign. I am noticeably different in the way I look, the way I speak, even the way that I insert an extra vowel into “colour” and think of fries when you offer me chips. But here, all of that is in principle completely acceptable . We pride ourselves on ethnic diversity: our differences make us profoundly unique, each niche idiosyncrasy contributing to this pool of multiculturalism. However, I am lucky. What if it were different here? What if people actively discriminated against me because of my alien ways? And if my behaviour were somehow detrimental to them, would they be justified in doing so? It is certainly not an absurd notion. Concerns about xenophobia have been on the rise the world over, and in Europe this has manifested in the form of an old tension: the Eastern-Western divide. A specific example of this tension came into the limelight this past May in the form of UK political party leader Nigel Farage and his comments regarding his neighbours. In a statement on national radio he declared, “Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.” The backlash against him was instantaneous as his remarks were deemed racial slurs by opposing politicians and throughout the media, but this reaction camouflaged some of the complexities really involved in the issue. Recently Farage has become something of a figurehead for the rising concerns against immigrants in Britain. The UK Independence Party (UKIP), of which he is head, argues for Eurosceptism and an ultimate break from the European Union. Endorsing slogans such as “We believe Britain must get back control over its borders,” it is easy for the entire movement to be interpreted as prejudice. However, it is just that; interpretation. It is a matter of where you draw the line. If you look at the evidence, Romanian nationals are disproportionally more likely to be arrested for certain crimes in London. Solely examining the statistics, there is an argument that might justify Farage’s preference. If, by definition, xenophobia is the unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar; does a reason make his assertion admissible? However, the extrapolation of specific data to isolate a particular group of people is almost definitely strategic. Farage conveniently alludes straight to crime, playing on people’s fear and disallowing further consideration into the benefits of multiculturalism. It is extremely tactical to exclude the advantages and UKIP is very good at enhancing the bad. Besides, the use of this kind of political propaganda is dramatic. Against his more liberal counterparts, Farage’s attitude gains press by simply being. He plays a character and sometimes characters exaggerate to get attention. The problem is that recent social uneasiness, due to economic issues, has prompted some European voters to be more inclined to favour the extremity, in order to try and promote results. Immigration reform plays on xenophobic tendencies as a scapegoat for societal issues and as a result, it is difficult to gauge what is a legitimate negative impact. NYU floods us with the benefits of multiculturalism practically on a daily basis, so it is difficult to fathom the possibility that sometimes there is a dark side to globalization. As the global recession peaked, the European Union was said to almost be in chaos as powerful Western countries appeared to start to group together. Most xenophobic behaviour can be contributed to influential psychological theories. The Social Identity Theory professes that naturally an in-group (in conjunction with Farage, the British) and an out-group (Romanians) form in social interactions. It is proposed that this kind of stereotyping is based on the normal cognitive process of grouping things together, but worryingly people are also shown to actively try and find negative aspects of the out-group in order to enhance their own self-image. So the question of whether Farage was justified still stands. Having arguably governed history’s worst atrocities towards human beings, xenophobia is not something that anyone can condone. But as globalization thrives, cultural exchanges are undoubtedly becoming more complicated. What rights do we have to endorse the protection of our own society against others who are undeniably dangerous? If calling a fry a chip were a crime, would you be right in not wanting me as your neighbour? Honestly the maintenance of a multicultural society, and now a multicultural world, is going to cause rifts. The quintessential concept being diversity and when diversity strikes, so do differences. I suppose it is now the duty of global citizens to decipher for themselves how much of our reasoning is tainted by inclinations towards our own society.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27474099

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclosure_2013/feb_2013/2013010001669.pdf

http://www.ukip.org/issues

http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html

This article was written by Stephanie Bailey. Send an email to [email protected] to get in touch. Photo Credit: Tirza Alberta