An oft-repeated argument against Government intervention is that it can have unintended consequences that often contradict the original intention. An example would be how the mandatory wearing of seatbelts encourages drivers to behave more recklessly and increase accident rates (though this particular example is readily becoming an economics urban myth).
From the BBC yesterday comes a story about how translation services cost the UK £100m. Your first reaction may be to shrug your shoulders; we live in a very multicultural society after all, and it’s important that essential medical and social services are communicated in languages other than English. And it’s right of course that we make immigrants feel welcome. But what effect is this paltry sum having? Well, one obvious unintended consequence is that non-English speakers have little incentive to learn English. As one interviewee elegantly puts it (translated from her own language obviously):
When you are trying to help us you are actually harming. Even before we ask, all we have to do is say hello, they are here with their interpreters. We just sit here doing nothing and we don’t need to speak in English at all
Last night’s Newsnight gave further coverage to this story and illustrated quite clearly how these attempts to involve immigrants in the British way of life (i.e. accessing social services, understanding their “rights” etc.) may actually be isolating them further. For scores of women from the Indian sub-continent who come to live here, the problem may be worse: their husbands would prefer their wives to stay at home and be isolated and with limited incentive to learn English that may be happening. To the £100m actual cost of translation then add lost employment and social opportunities and increasing tension because of segregation.
Of course, I’m not advocating that we scrap the provision of translation services entirely, but I think they need to be consistent with a higher policy aim, which is apparently to emphasise the dominance of British culture in the UK. This aim simply isn’t credible whilst local authorites and NHS trusts bend over backwards to accommodate the apparent demands of immigrants. I say apparent because I believe that in most cases the individuals would prefer to learn English, precisely so they can be more involved in British life. I don’t buy the theory that hordes of Bangladeshi women from villages outside Dhaka are happily creating their own little third world paradise in Bethnal Green. Indeed, their sense of isolation must be even more palpable in E1, given the contrast in British and Bangladeshi culture. Critics would point to the example of France, and how immigrants can be ghettoised even when the superiorty of French is encouraged but this is a false comparison. The rioters in Paris spoke good French and their economic isolation has more to do with draconian French employment law.
My wider complaint is how this is a symptom of a pervasive cultural relativism. At the extreme it makes it difficult to argue against practices that we should rightly abhor, such as female isolation and subservience to men. It sends the signal that all-comes will be accommodated as they are. Is it a conceit to argue otherwise? Only if you believe that our human nature gives little insight as to what we are and how we should be. The opposite view is to assume that our lives and cultures, because they are shaped by history and the environment, are all equal. Maintaining this (false) premise is perhaps one of the greatest ills affecting all otherwise good thinking people.
