Ethnicity - Social issue or an organisational concern? Is it the organisation's sole responsibility?

Question

Or is there a greater factor that supersedes the organisations role - 'social realities' beliefs, Values. Is the idea of looking at ethnicity from an organisation context at best mis placed? Or should we be looking at ethnicity from a wider context - 'social-political' arena of living in modern day Britain. Ultimately, who is responsible for this change? Governments, organisations or people?

Answer 1

Europe split Africa into separate nations, and England split up India but kept the nation whole. To this day, Africa has problems with cultural clusters and races divided between borders. England even pushed to make Israel and displaced the Palestinians in the effort. (Not that I am blaming England for this). So I argue that cultural aggregation became a political enforcement.

But the same occurs throughout the world. Even Americans and Canadians in some places have a soft border of relations. Ethnicity has to do with race. Italians live in France. Chinese live in Malaysia.

Societal grouping is about values and beliefs - culture. That is interracial and borderless, yet can remain within borders and practiced by one race.

Social Anthropology is very broad. When you use the term "organization", I think of corporation, or coalition though we are discussing how people cluster and mass.

Answer 2

It is cerrtainly not the Organisations' sole reponsibility. (I assume that "Organisation" relates to corporate business - you do not tell us what your definition of "Organisation" is) [UK]

The first responsibility is vested in Civil and Criminal Law. Law exists to ensure the maintenance of a tranquil society. Equality, in English Law, is built into the system. This is a Governmental responsibility.

The Organisation's responsibility is to ensure that ethnic feelings are catered for. This means that the staff canteen cooks meat other than pork, provides vegetarian food that is not prepared using beef dripping, and also is able to offer English food as well. (As a restauranteur, I have to take these considerations seriously - I cannot offer Halal or Kosher as the market is too small, but I do use vegetable oils for most of my cooking. I use beef dripping for chips and saute potatoes, but this fact is mentioned on my menu and if you are veggie, I will run up a special batch of chips etc cooked in veg oil, at no extra charge) The Organisation must do its best to cater for the requirements of ethnic minorities, particularly in respect of religion - in England it is possible to nip out at lunchtime and find a Christian church building that is open for prayer and even Holy Communion; but Mosques are a bit rarer. I do feel that Organisations should provide a chapel room, in which Muslims who wish to pray five times a day can have access to. A Holy Room will soon take on a special character, ,and will become a sacred space for all religious people. This is social reality, in one facet at least.

"Social-political". No political party in England pays anything other than lip-service to any social problem or concern, whether it is ethnically based or otherwise. Politicians cannot legislate on this issue, except to provide 'politically correct ' policies that satisfy no one and alienate quite a few.

Ultimately, ethnicity is not a social issue or an organisational concern within England. Legislation exists to prevent and bring to account the perpetration of crimes that are based on ethnic bias. Socially, we can either choose to live in peace with other ethnicities, or adopt a model previously tried by a certain Herr Hitler.

One can, of course, argue the Marxist point, but class is not really an issue here. As a Weberian, I feel that the mechanism of control and organisation of ethnic issues are already in place. We have legislated for a fair society. All it takes now is for the people to make it work.

Answer 3

Well, here's an American perspective.

Organizations--including governmental oness--are responsible for ensuring that they do not (even inadvertantly) create barriers to individuals based on their ethnicity). As a matter of public policy, it can also be sueful to implement programs (in education, especially) designed to overcome existing social inequalities--not by rrestricting some but by providing corrective opportunities to the disadvantaged.

But that's all. Real progruess--and the ultimate responsibility for the same--is with the people--and it can not be put off on organizations or government. Becuase in a democracy, ultimately, it is people's attitudes that determine social status and opportunity.

Answer 4

I don't know where you're coming from. What is "the organisation" in this equation? The government? The community? The government cannot legislate attitudes. It can, on occasion, legislate protection of endangered folkways -- see American Indians. But what extraordinary action can the government do vis a vis Ethnic groups to make them more accepted? Probably none. Murder and harrassment and terroristic threatening and discrimination in housing and employment are all illegal. Members of ethnic groups have the same protection as any citizen, in theory, at least.

Answer 5

This government's afirmative actions policies violate several major tenets of freedom. The most prominate of these being freedom of association.

If you don't like someone, for whatever reason, you should not be forced to associate with them. The government oversteps its bounds when it forces privately owned businesses to cater to people they don't like.

In the end it is the free market that will solve the ethnicity problems. Businesses think about the bottom line. Successful businesses will try to broaden their customer base as much as possible not limit it for frivilous reasons such as ethnicity.

Answer 6

If you want a sensible answer you could start by defining the term 'Ethnicity' and then go on to put the rest of your question in English, or any other recognisable language.

Answer 7

A geopolitical reality.And what organisation?