that underlying multiculturalism is the facilitation of what he terms ‘group
evolutionary strategies’, where a group evolutionary strategy is a Darwinian coinage
meaning social practices intended to permit the genetic continuation of a minority
group in the midst of a majority racial group. Combined with liberal immigration
policies this serves to undermine the interests of the (white) majority (MacDonald’s
work is discussed in Michael, 2006).
Defenders of multiculturalism maintain that ‘race’ is a social construct and reject
this claim. They follow biologist Richard Lewontin in arguing that there is greater
genetic diversity within groups popularly defined as ‘races’ than between such
groups. Lewontin argued that about 85 per cent of total genetic variation is due to
individual differences within populations and only 15 per cent to differences between
populations (races, ethnic groups). Actually, the reality is more complex. Lewontin
is not wrong if you count each locus (that is, the location of a particular gene and
its different versions, or alleles). Take blood groups: there are four phenotypes (blood
groups): A, B, ABand O. These are based on at least three alleles at a single locus:
A, Band O. If you tried to identify the racial origins of a person based on her
blood group there would be a high probability of making a mistake. However, if
you consider multiple loci for one individual – that is, a whole set of alleles coding
for many different traits (phenotypes) possessed by her – then you could easily
identify her origins by the correlation between these alleles (Edwards, 2003). Using
this method you can achieve very high levels of concordance between a person’s
self-identified race/ethnicity (SIRE) and his or her genetic profile (Tang et al., 2005:
271). Of course, it does not follow that there are behavioural differences between
‘races’ (ethnic groups): just because you can trace a person’s origins via genetic
testing does not mean that those genes are functionally meaningful. Genes only
express themselves through traits (phenotypes), and many different genes can affect
the ‘same’ phenotypes (for example, height or muscularity or intelligence).
Furthermore, the environment can both directly affect behaviour and indirectly affect
it through the expression of genes.
Until relatively recently, race (or ethnicity) rather than culture was the dominant
concept in debates about citizenship and immigration. This is reflected in law.
British legislation intended to outlaw discrimination carried the title of Race
Relations Act(s) – of which there were three: 1965, 1968, 1976. The 1976 Act,
which superseded the previous ones, defined a ‘racial group’ as ‘a group of persons
defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins’
(Macdonald, 1977: 49). There is no mention of culture, or indeed religion. A
complex relationship exists between anti-racist politics and multiculturalism. Since
a person can be defined as ‘different’ by a range of characteristics, including language
(and accent), bodily characteristics, dress, religion and diet, where the salience of
each varies from one situation to another, legislation designed to protect that person
cannot easily slot discrimination into a single category, such as racial, or religious,
or cultural, or ethnic. In this sense race and culture are inextricably linked. However,
race is relatively fixed as against culture – even if we reject race as a biological
category, a person’s race is perceivedas fixed. Culture, because it is concerned with
beliefs and lifestyle, possesses a greater fluidity. The danger which some anti-racists
see in multiculturalism is that, in the name of respecting difference and fighting
discrimination, multiculturalists deny people autonomy – they assume that cultural
traits are fundamental to that person’s identity.
Chapter 15 Multiculturalism 339