Superficial multiculturalism
-
Buettner uses Stanley Fish’s idea of “boutique multiculturalism” to refer to the increasing British taste for so-called Indian food (p.5). Most white Britons have a superficial relationship with South-Asian cuisine, which passes for multiculturalism even though they are far from accepting South-Asian immigrants. At first, South-Asian restaurants had a clientele of lower-class South-Asian immigrants, like seamen. These were working-class establishments completely ignored by white British people. The only exception was the ex-colonials who worked in South Asia. South-Asian restaurants were selling them the ‘Oriental’ dream with native waiters and “good old Indian” food. They were cultivating the ex-colonials nostalgia for the colonial ‘good old times.’
Therefore, in Britain, these restaurants were known as places with an arrogant, white privileged colonial clientele, served by allegedly unhygienic South Asian people. The average white Briton feared insalubrity and smell and digestive problems, ideas which emerged from racist assumptions. This is why, in the 1960s and 1970s, young white working/middle-class men went “for an Indian” to display their masculinity with acts of racism. Going to a South-Asian restaurant was associated with taking a risk.
South-Asian restaurants then adapted their cuisine to fit the taste of white Britons. Their white clientele grew with the assumption that consuming “Indian” food was multicultural. It is a common phenomenon in European nations with colonial histories. White people have a growing desire for “exotic” food. South-Asian restaurants successfully accommodated their cuisine for white people. For example, I remember going to an “Indian” restaurant in London and seeing the dishes rated from 1 to 10 for their spiciness. It was probably according to white Britons’ sense of spiciness and not South-Asian people. However, the successes of South-Asian restaurants led to opportunities for British cities to advertise their local ethnic diversity. They are using minority cultural products for self-promotion while denying the deep-rooted racism and intolerance towards South-Asian people, especially Muslims. -
I like the title of your discussion post @anna_katabi , and I agree with you about the fact that the so-called multiculturalism of (some) white Britons, is superficial. Superficial because even though they might eat South Asian food, they still have racist and xenophobic assumptions about them, and they are still seen as second-class citizens. Buettner writes that ‘’ Ethnic minorities and their cultural practices have long been, and to a considerable extent continue to be, widely met by racism, suspicion, and intolerance. For many white Britons, food may well constitute what Uma Narayan and others have described as the nonthreatening, “acceptable face of multiculturalism’’ (144). Elsewhere she quotes Jatinder Verma’s reflection that expresses this idea of ‘’superficial ‘’ multiculturalism “I do not think that imaginatively we have become multicultural. I think that in the diet we have, absolutely, but I don’t think that has translated from our stomachs to our brains yet” (Buettner, 170).
Also, I would add to what you said that the article is also about a ''superficial tolerance'' towards South Asians linked to ‘’boutique multiculturalism’’ as you mentioned. This ‘’superficial tolerance’’ can be described as the fact that (some) white Britons are interested in eating South Asian food, but they don’t want interactions with South Asians, they don’t want to share space with them except if it’s to consume the ‘’oriental goods’’ they have to offer or to be served by an ‘’oriental looking’’ individual. Throughout the text, there are many examples of this ‘’partial’’ tolerance. For example, Elizabeth Buettner writes that “While curry may have been incorporated . . . into British cuisine, ‘the desire to assimilate and possess what is external to the self’ did not extend to actual people of Indian origin’’ (144). Elsewhere she mentions when the author quotes Jatinder Verma's reflection, “I do not think that imaginatively we have become multicultural. I think that in diet we have, absolutely, but I don’t think that has translated from our stomachs to our brains yet” (Buettner, 170).
Buettner asks an interesting question when she writes ‘’ If “Indian” food now counts as “British,” has a Britishness thus conceived replaced one that long revolved around whiteness with one that makes space for ethnic minority peoples and cultures? (Buettner, 146) I think that with what we have said, my answer to that question would be that I don’t believe white Britons are ready to redefine Britishness to be more inclusive of ethnic minorities, because the so-called multiculturalism they might claim, is only one of surface, superficial. I think this is also what Jatinder Verma is trying to express.