Integration
Integration has been presented variously as both describing an outcome and process. Recently, it is also being more frequently interchanged with ‘cohesion’ – for example the new Communities and Local Government (CLG) definition of cohesion is in fact a definition of an ‘integrated and cohesive community’. However, these are not the same thing, though there is an assumption that a more integrated society, in which people develop positive relationships within and outside their own groups, will be more cohesive.
Integration re-emerged as a defining intellectual concept in the work undertaken by the Commission for Racial Equality between 2004 and 2007. Initially, this was in contrast to multiculturalism, which had again appeared to promote the separateness of different communities. The CRE’s Chair, Trevor Phillips, argued that an ‘anything goes’ multiculturalism had led to deeper division and inequality and that integration was needed to bind people together.
Integration is a clearly stated approach to building inclusive communities. An integrated society has three essential features (Johnson, 2007):
- Equality: everyone is treated equally, has a right to fair outcomes and no-one should expect privileges because of who or what they are.
- Participation: all groups should expect to share in how we make decisions but also expect to carry the responsibilities for making society work.
- Interaction: no-one should be trapped within their own community, and in the truly integrated society, who people work with, or the friendships they make, should not be constrained by race or ethnicity.
These themes were repeated and reinforced in the final report of the CRE, A Lot Done – A Lot To Do ( 2007). This argued that “to achieve an integrated Britain, we need to achieve equality for all sections of society, interaction between all sections of society and participation by all sections of society.”
In this context, it is clear that intercultural dialogue best supports the interaction element of an integration agenda.
